Private business

London Bombings

John McFall: The Chancellor will know that the Lisbon target was for average economic growth of 3 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) indicated that we are far from that. Can the Chancellor spread the idea that if we do not respond together on the issue of globalisation and particularise India and China, the future for Europe will be bleak? What policies does he have to ensure that that challenge to globalisation is met by the European Union?

Vincent Cable: I know that the Chancellor has had a lot on his mind, but has he had time to refresh his memory of the Lisbon agenda, which he inspired, particularly the passage in which he committed himself to take
	"concrete measures... to alleviate the tax pressure on labour and especially on the relatively unskilled and unpaid"?
	How does he reconcile that commitment with the striking conclusions of the Treasury Select Committee, which are summarised in a remarkable graphic, that while the Government have made welcome progress in cutting extreme marginal tax rates, the number of workers who now pay marginal tax withdrawal rates of 60 to 70 per cent. has doubled to almost 2 million under his stewardship?

Gordon Brown: When we came to power, because of the way the family credit system worked, people had marginal tax rates of above 100 per cent. Thousands of people had marginal tax rates of above 90 per cent. and 80 per cent. We have eliminated those marginal tax rates, and the hon. Gentleman should give us credit for that.  [ Interruption. ] We have eliminated marginal tax rates above 100 per cent. and 90 per cent., as I said. Has the hon. Gentleman also seen the report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which says that for the average family with two children the effective tax rate for the average earner has fallen from 17 per cent. to 8 per cent. during the course of the Government? That shows that, not only are we relieving child poverty but, by introducing tax credits and a 10p income tax rate and reducing the basic rate of income tax from 23p to 22p, we have been able to help the very people he is talking about. If the hon. Gentleman really wants to have a sensible economic policy, perhaps he will start looking at the changes that he needs to make in his own.

Gordon Brown: Growth is higher. Employment is 125,000 higher than last year. We are meeting our inflation target. Interest rates are half what they were. I do not think that the shadow Chancellor should be dining out on the idea that the British economy is falling apart under Labour. We have a more stable economy, higher investment and higher employment. If the shadow Chancellor does not believe that, why was he telling people only a few months ago that Labour had been successful at establishing economic credibility and had improved the macroeconomic management of the economy, and that too often the Conservatives had sacrificed long-term economic credibility for short-term gestures? He should look again at his own statements.

Dawn Primarolo: There have been a number of representations since the Government removed the exemption for benefit-in-kind tax charges and national insurance contributions for employer-provided computer equipment loaned to employees.

Mark Francois: If the scheme was so poorly targeted, why were the Government about to roll it out to employees in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Work and Pensions on the very day the Treasury scrapped it? The CBI and the TUC have endorsed the scheme, which has helped 500,000 people and their families to improve their computer skills. When the Chancellor announced the original concession, he told the  Daily Record:
	"Britain can no longer afford to lag behind America. Inequality in computer learning today will mean inequality in earning power tomorrow."
	Even at this eleventh hour, will the Government recognise that this is a poor decision, taken by an analogue Chancellor who is stuck in the past and reversing?

Brian H Donohoe: How has it been possible to maintain such low inflation, which has been very helpful to local industries in my constituency, while energy prices, particularly oil, have soared in price? What is the Chancellor going to do about that?

Rob Marris: I am reassured that my hon. Friend says that the centre will continue to focus on climate change. What concerns me, as he may be aware, is that although the Government have an admirable record on measures in this country and in taking leadership around the world to cut emissions, we are not doing nearly enough to address the effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels and so on. Can he assure me that that centre and other centres will continue to do valuable work in that regard, because climate change is coming whether we like it or not and however much we cut our emissions, as we should do?

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that a combination of the minimum wage and tax credits has been responsible for the substantial boosts to income that we have seen. Let me give some examples. A family with one child has seen its weekly income go from £182 a week to £268 a week, which is a 23 per cent. rise. A family with two children on half-average earnings is better off by £3,500 a year as a result of that combination. If we were to go backwards by abolishing the minimum wage or tax credits, we would have both rising poverty and poverty pay in the workplace, which would be the wrong thing for our country.

Iain Wright: In the Tees valley, companies such as Petroplus, SembCorp and the Biofuels Corporation as well as public sector organisations such as One NorthEast, Renew Tees Valley and NEPIC—the north east process industries cluster—are all working together to help to develop a modern, environmentally friendly industry. My sub-region has a fantastic opportunity to become not only a national but a global centre of excellence. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that that vision is realised?

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that East Anglia faces its greatest farming crisis since the 1920s? The one bright light at the end of the tunnel is biofuels. Teesside notwithstanding, does he share my concern that as new refining capacity has come onstream at a snail's pace, we need a wider fuel duty differential?

John Healey: The biofuels market has increased sixfold since 2003, and a number of biodiesel and bioethanol plants have been built or planned, including the Wessex grain plant near his constituency that will probably be the first bioethanol plant in this country. I should expect the hon. Gentleman to welcome what we put place in the Budget, because it will give greater certainty to the industry, which has welcomed it because it wants to invest for the future. I should like the consensus on environmental policy for which the leader of his party has called to fall behind the measures that the Government have taken.

Chris McCafferty: Given that the UN Secretary-General has said that the millennium developments goals, particularly the eradication of poverty, cannot be achieved unless questions of population and reproductive health are squarely addressed, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that in discussions on financing for development, he will ensure that reproductive health and the empowerment of women stay at the top of the agenda?

Brian Jenkins: In his talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, will he offer any help and support that he can to that Department to undertake research into why pensioners do not take up the opportunity available to them? Is some psychological barrier preventing people from believing that there is money available for free? How do we overcome that problem?

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Elfyn Llwyd: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement.
	On 4 May, during business questions, you asked me whether I had given the Secretary of State for Wales notice of my intention to name him. I said that contact had been made at five minutes to 11. My personal assistant, in my presence and hearing, telephoned the Secretary of State's office at that time and was told that he was away on a private, family matter. The member of staff at the Wales Office offered to put me through to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. I did not take up that offer. I recognise that I did not make that clear and that, by not doing so, I inadvertently misled you and the House, for which I sincerely apologise.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the next two weeks. I have already had the opportunity to welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post, and I am sure that this will be the start of a fruitful relationship— [ Interruption.] But there are certain matters that I should make clear to him from the outset. I do not get up at 4.30 am to go to the gym, I cannot play the piano and I have absolutely no intention of standing for the presidency of the United States. Having said that, may we have a debate in Government time on Iran? Given the different views within the Government on what action should be taken, such a debate would allow the Foreign Secretary to clarify whether she has changed the Government's position.
	According to a recent report, half of all the children born to parents with learning difficulties are taken into care. This raises concern about the authorities' attitude to those parents. Furthermore, the state's failure to care properly for looked-after children raises concerns about their future. This country's record on looked-after children is a scandal. May we have a debate on the matter?
	May we have a statement from the Health Secretary on advice to primary care trusts about the use of Herceptin for early-stage breast cancer? It was clear from Tuesday's debate that there are still widespread differences in the approaches of different PCTs across the country.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on her new housing development policy, and particularly on why my constituents and those of other hon. Members will not be allowed to object to overdevelopment whereas her constituents will be? We could then ask her what the Government have learned from the recent council elections, which of course saw Labour lose 319 councillors—[Hon. Members: "How many?"] That was 319, for those who did not hear me. And the Conservatives gained 316 new councillors—

Jack Straw: The answer was not no; it was maybe—and it still is. The issue is the straightforward one of trying to find space for such debates, on the assumption that Members on both sides of the House wish to adjourn for the summer recess on 25 July. I am happy to stay on, but I will do my best, and I recognise the importance of the issue. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary rightly said, each of us must choose our own language when dealing with questions, but in practice there is absolutely no difference between her approach, the Prime Minister's and mine to the issue of Iran.
	On the issue of children with learning difficulties, I do not accept that the state's position has been a failure. However, dealing with looked-after children has always been very difficult, for Governments of both parties. We can always do better, but parenting difficulties are the reason that the children must be looked after in the first place, as all of us know from our constituency experience.
	I shall follow up the right hon. Lady's request that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health make a statement on advice to PCTs about Herceptin. It might be a written ministerial statement, but I accept that an issue was raised on Wednesday, and I listened to the debate.
	The right hon. Lady's point about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, is ridiculous, if she will allow me to say that. The criticism of my right hon. Friend has been that she has represented her constituents— [Interruption.] No, with great respect, everybody knows that any Secretary of State who has a power in relation to local authorities opts out entirely of any decisions relating to their own constituency. There cannot be a single Member on either side of the House who is not assiduous in representing constituents and following up representations made about planning applications. The Government and local authorities must balance those representations in the round. I have made plenty of representations against development on behalf of my constituents. The local authority, which happens to be controlled by my party, often says, "Thank you very much for those representations, but we can't accept them." We all acknowledge that. The criticism of my right hon. Friend is that she is simply doing her job, so it is one that I wholly resist.
	As for the recent council elections, I shall just say two things—

Jack Straw: Yes, that is one of them. In each of the May local elections in the 1980s and 1990s, we did rather better than the Conservative party. We used to chalk up hundreds of gains. In the mid-1980s, I was the local government spokesperson for my party in opposition. If success in local elections had led automatically to an election of a Labour Government, we would have had one in 1983, in 1987 and in 1992.
	The right hon. Lady did not mention the local election results in Blackburn, where it is true that the Labour party had a net loss of two, which may be understandable, but it is also true that the Conservative party had a net loss of two. The Conservative party shrunk from 17 seats to 15.
	I do not think that a statement on the Rural Payments Agency is necessary, although I understand all the difficulties that have been faced in respect of the RPA. I have carefully considered the figures today, and Ministers in the other place have been making announcements. I understand that 85 per cent. of the value of the payments due for 2005 have now been made to 50 per cent. of the farmers concerned. The payments outstanding for 2005 are very small—some thousands. They ought to be made, however, and they will be made as quickly as possible. We have apologised for the mistakes that have occurred. As for the future, I shall certainly raise the issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I think that the position is now improving.
	Finally, the right hon. Lady raised a serious point about equality. I defer to no one, least of all members of the Conservative party, on the subject of our record on equality. I was in the House when a Conservative Government, to cheers from the Conservative party, forced through section 28 of the Housing Act 1988 and failed to do anything about equality for those who had a different sexual preference. They also did very little about equality for those whose skins were a different colour. In 18 years of Conservative government, there was no legislation whatever in respect of racial or religious equality. We will take no lectures on equality from the right hon. Lady or her party.

Ian Paisley: The Leader of the House has doubtless seen the report issued this week by the Ministry of Defence on Army installations in Northern Ireland. We need to debate this issue, for the simple reason that the people west of the Bann will have no Army presence at all—they will lose it completely. The headquarters of the IRA dissidents is located in that area, and they are very active in that community. People are very alarmed at the prospect of losing the Army installations entirely, and closure of the Army barracks in my own Ballymena constituency has also been proposed. We need also to address the question of employment. I wish the Leader of the House well in his new job, and I hope that he will think of Ballymena and of the constituents whom I represent.

Shailesh Vara: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new appointment, and I very much hope that he will continue to exercise in his new role the independence of thought that he exercised in his previous one—even if that was the reason he was moved. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister has been relieved of his departmental duties, may we have a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer explaining why he has given the Deputy Prime Minister special exemption from paying tax on the benefits in kind that he continues to enjoy?

Jack Straw: I remind my hon. Friend that Health questions will take place next Tuesday. I am glad that he acknowledges that because of the dramatic increase in the number of UK-trained doctors—and those trained in the EU—the demand for doctors trained outside the EU is bound to fall. That has led to the change of policy. That said, I pay tribute to the huge contribution that overseas doctors have made to the running of the health service. My own doctor when I was a child came from India—and that was in suburban Essex—so I acknowledge their contribution. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Home Secretary are also fully aware of that contribution. I looked into the issue for constituency reasons and I thought that the change of regulations was reasonable, but I will pass my hon. Friend's concern to my right hon. Friends.

Angus MacNeil: In a book published this morning called "Where the Truth Lies", an essay by a Member of Parliament alleges that a peerage was offered to the publisher at Heinemann as an inducement not to publish "Spycatcher". In Tony Benn's diaries, he mentions a Labour MP being offered a peerage as an inducement not to stand for election to this House. The more I discover, the more concerned I am about such practices, which are offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. The fact that such practices are possible compromises Parliament severely. May we have a debate on this matter, and a moratorium on further appointments to the Lords until the system is beyond reproach? Or should we just continue to ignore it, like ostriches, with the very real possibility of corruption in our midst?

LONDON BOMBINGS

John Reid: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the 7 July bombings.
	I am today publishing the official account on the bombings in London on 7 July last year. Also today the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee into intelligence aspects of the bombings has been published, together with the Government's response. I very much regret the sombre nature of my first statement to the House as Home Secretary. I send my condolences, as the new Home Secretary, to all those who suffered in those events and I pay tribute to the work done by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke).
	The official account published today summarises what we know about the bombers and how and why they did what they did. It is not yet a complete picture, both because we have had to withhold some information for legal and security reasons and because the police investigation is continuing and we may discover more. It will be for the legal process to confirm formally what happened, but as is now well known, there were four suicide attacks carried out by four British citizens. Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Jermaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain. Those attacks killed 52 people over and above the bombers themselves and injured over 700.
	The first three bombs went off simultaneously at 8.50 am on the underground. The first, in a Circle line tunnel between Liverpool Street and Aldgate stations, was carried out by Tanweer and killed seven people and injured 171. The second, on the Circle line just outside Edgware Road, was carried out by Khan and killed six people and injured 163. The third, on the Piccadilly line between King's Cross and Russell Square, was carried out by Lindsay and killed 26 and injured over 340.
	Just under an hour later at 9.47 am, Hussain detonated the fourth device on a No. 30 bus in Tavistock square. This killed 13 and injured over 110. It remains unclear why Hussain did not detonate his bomb at the same time as the others. It may be that he was frustrated by delays on the underground heading north from King's Cross. However, it now appears that he bought a battery after coming out of the underground system, which could mean that he had difficulty detonating the device earlier. But I stress that this remains speculation at this point.
	We now know from CCTV footage and witness statements that Khan, Tanweer, and Hussain travelled down from Leeds in a hire car that morning and met up with Lindsay in Luton station car park. Further devices were found in one of the cars which may have been for self-defence or diversion in case of interception during the journey down. They do not appear to indicate a fifth bomber and there is no evidence to suggest this elsewhere. The four then travelled from Luton to King's Cross, leaving at 7.40 am and arriving at 8.23 am.
	Owing to some outstanding police and security service work in the immediate aftermath of the bombings, the police were able publicly to confirm the identities of Tanweer and Hussain on 14 July and Khan and Lindsay on 16 July. The key factors leading them to this were finding credit and other cards in the names of the four at the sites—in Khan's case his cards were found at more than one site—Hussain's family calling the police emergency hotline reporting him missing, and subsequently discovering that he had travelled to London with Khan and Tanweer; the discovery by the security service that Khan, and subsequently Tanweer, had been picked up on the periphery of another investigation; the CCTV images of four men with rucksacks matching their descriptions at King's Cross and Luton; and the discovery of the two cars in Luton car park.
	Khan, Tanweer and Hussain were all second-generation British citizens of Pakistani origin from the same small area of Leeds. Lindsay was a British citizen of Jamaican origin who had grown up in Huddersfield and moved to Aylesbury after his marriage. Khan was a well-respected teaching assistant and youth worker, aged 30 at the time of the bombings. Tanweer, who was just 22, had recently left university. Hussain was only 18 and had just completed sixth form college, and Lindsay, who was 19, had left school and had a series of odd jobs thereafter.
	The account which is published today sets out what we know about their early lives and how they may have been radicalised. The picture remains incomplete at this stage, but, with the partial exception of Lindsay, there is little that marks them out as particularly vulnerable to radicalisation and little in their subsequent behaviour which could have given much indication to those around them of their intentions. It is not yet known whether others in the UK were involved in indoctrinating the group or helping them to plan, but Lindsay appears to have been influenced by an extremist preacher who is now serving a prison sentence. Their motivation appears to have been a mixture of anger at perceived injustices by the west against Muslims and a desire for martyrdom.
	The account that we publish today also details what we know about influence from abroad. Khan is known to have made a number of trips to Pakistan, including one in July 2003 when he is believed to have had some relevant training. Khan and Tanweer travelled together to Pakistan between November 2004 and February 2005 and are assessed as likely to have met al-Qaeda figures during this visit. There were a series of suspicious contacts from an unknown individual or individuals in Pakistan in the immediate run-up to the bombings. We do not know their content. Al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility for launching the attacks, but the extent of its involvement is unclear.
	Shortly after the second Pakistan trip—the trip from November 2004 to February 2005—the group appear to have begun planning in earnest. They appear to have assembled the devices at 18 Alexandra grove, a flat in another part of Leeds. As far as experts can establish, the bombs were made with ingredients that are readily commercially available, and to have required only limited expertise to assemble. The operation appears to have been self-financed and the cash raised by methods that would be extremely difficult to identify as related to terrorism or other serious criminality. Our best estimate is that the operation cost less than £8,000 overall.
	The account published today does not address the emergency response, but it is right that I should place on record my thanks and admiration for the bravery of so many—the police, those working on the underground, buses and trains, medical staff, firefighters, disaster recovery teams, volunteers and ordinary people, including and perhaps especially the survivors. The Government have separately conducted a lessons learned exercise addressing many aspects of the emergency response, and we will publish the results shortly. The London Assembly's inquiry, due to report soon, is also considering this.
	I now turn to the Intelligence and Security Committee report. The Committee is, of course, independent of Government, but it has had access to a wide range of highly classified documents. Its report assesses what was known prior to July, how the threat level and alert state systems operated, how the threat was assessed, and issues of coverage, resources and co-operation between the security and intelligence agencies and between the agencies and the police. The House will obviously wish to give it serious consideration. The Prime Minister has presented to Parliament today the Government's response to the report, which generally welcomes its conclusions.
	I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), as Chairman of the Committee, has spoken in more detail about the report this morning, but I note first that the report sets out that the security service had come across two of the bombers, Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, on the margins of other investigations. On the basis of what was then known, the security service made the judgement that they were peripheral to the main investigation and there was no intelligence to suggest that they were separately interested in planning an attack against the UK. Although limited attempts were made at that stage to identify the two men, the security service decided to concentrate its resources on higher priorities, including plots known at that time to attack the UK. The ISC report concludes that this decision was understandable.
	Secondly, the report concludes that it was not unreasonable to reduce the country threat level from "severe general" to "substantial" in May last year on the grounds that there was no intelligence of a current credible plot to attack the UK at that time.
	The term "substantial" still represented a high level of threat, and the report concludes that that reduction was unlikely to have altered the alertness of the responders or to have affected the chances of preventing the 7 July attacks. None the less, the Committee recommends changes to the system. The Government have reviewed it and will be making changes to create a simpler, more flexible and more proportionate system.
	The report makes a number of other useful recommendations, which we have addressed in the Government response. It also covers the issue of resourcing, which I will address in a moment. I am grateful to the Committee for its very thorough and constructive approach.
	What the official account and the ISC report demonstrate is the very real challenge that the police and the agencies face in combating this new kind of terrorism. The bombers were ordinary British citizens with little known history of extremist views, far less of violent intention. At least three were apparently as well integrated as anyone else. Their radicalisation, to the extent that we know how and where it happened, appears to have been conducted away from places with any obvious association with extremism.
	The willingness of the men to use suicide bombing as their method and to attack vulnerable, civilian targets—as is familiar from previous attacks—made them doubly difficult to defend against. That is not a comfortable message, but it is important that we are honest about it if we are to defend ourselves against the threat effectively.
	The key lesson—this is at the heart of the Government's counter-terrorist strategy—is that the response needs to be collective, with Government, Parliament, police, agencies, local communities, faith leaders and international co-operation all playing their part, and that it needs to be completely comprehensive.
	We have a counter-terrorism strategy for achieving that, known as "Contest", which aims to reduce the risk from international terrorism. As part of the strategy, we are seeking to prevent terrorism by stopping young people being indoctrinated into extremist violence. In that, we need the help of Muslim leaders and the community to fight the distortion of Islam that turns young people into terrorists. We have taken new powers to criminalise encouragement to terrorism. We need to work together to show that democracy is the only legitimate means of changing policies, and to ensure that all young people in all communities can see how engagement in British society can bring about change for the better. I know that my predecessor as Home Secretary led an extensive round of consultations with all sections of the Muslim community, and I intend to develop that.
	Secondly, we need an effective and adequately resourced law enforcement and intelligence effort. The ISC report suggests that we might have had a better chance of preventing the July attacks if more resources had been in place sooner. Even that, of course, would have been no guarantee of preventing the attack. The Government have put in substantially increased resources, particularly since 9/11. Further resources were provided last autumn. The Security Service is expanding as fast as its top management believes is organisationally possible.
	The specific police budget for counter-terrorism will have grown fourfold between the financial years 2002-03 and 2007-08—that is, in the period after 9/11. We have allocated £30 million extra next year and £60 million the year after to expand special branch and other specialist counter-terrorism capacity outside London. Indeed, the total cross-Government budget for counter terrorism and resilience has more than doubled, from less than £1 billion to more than £2 billion in the same period.
	In addition, general policing makes a significant contribution to the counter-terrorist effort. We will implement neighbourhood policing in all forces by next April and will expand the number of community support officers from around 6,500 to 16,000 in that period. That will improve our capacity to gather local intelligence to support the counter-terrorist element.
	In that context, I want to put it on the record that the police and agencies have disrupted many attacks against the UK since 9/11, including three since last July alone. However, the reality is that difficult choices have to be made between priorities in intelligence-led operations, whatever the level of resources.
	Thirdly, we need effective international co-operation. This is both a local and a global threat. We are a long way from being the only targets. As the House will know, there have been appalling attacks in the United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey and Indonesia, to name but a few. We need to have the closest possible law enforcement and intelligence links with our many allies in the war against global terrorism.
	We also need rapidly to develop European co-operation. The former Home Secretary made that his key priority for the UK presidency last year. He achieved important concrete outcomes, including common provisions on the retention of telecommunications data that will make it more difficult for terrorists to communicate across borders to plan their crimes. I will make it a major priority of mine to develop that co-operation further.
	The bombings were despicable attacks on ordinary people going about their normal daily business. It is a tribute to Londoners—the people of our capital city—that the city recovered with such remarkable speed. The victims have shown tremendous courage in rebuilding their lives, but I know that many victims, and particularly bereaved families, are still trying to find their own way to come to terms with what, for them, was a terrible personal tragedy. I think that it is right that we try to explain what the Government know about what happened that day, and I hope that many of the victims will find the account that we have published today helpful.
	I know that some will find it painful to relive those terrible events again, and that some will continue to feel that there should be a public inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for supporting victims. In the short period that I have been Home Secretary, and before that, she has explained to me the strong views that some of the families hold on that subject. I find that perfectly understandable, but the House will know that my predecessor as Home Secretary explained last year why the Government had decided that it was not right to hold such an inquiry, a decision with which I concur. However, I should like to offer some further explanation to those most directly affected.
	I shall therefore be writing to all those who were bereaved by the 7 July attacks to offer them the chance to come and talk the issue through. I and my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary will convene a series of meetings, at which families will be able to ask detailed questions about the documents that have been published today. At those meetings, I hope that I will be able to explain to them why I do not think a public inquiry would be the best step to take. Not least among the reasons is that such an inquiry would involve diverting very precious resources needed for the security and protection of everyone, at a critical time.
	As Home Secretary, my principal duty is to protect the public. I am determined that we will learn the lessons from the official account and ISC report, and strengthen our defences against the terrorist threat, but international terrorism will not be defeated by the security services, the police or the Government acting alone. It will be beaten only by all of us in this country working together to defeat what is a threat to us all. That is what all of us must achieve together.

David Davis: I welcome the Home Secretary to his new post and am sorry that his first outing is on such a tragic subject. I join him in offering our condolences to those who suffered in the attacks and our thanks to and admiration for those whose bravery and commitment on the day and afterwards saved so many lives.
	The issue before us is, as the Home Secretary implied, of great importance. The attacks in London on 7 July and 21 July were attacks on our people, our country and our way of life. Accordingly, our ability to deal with such attacks and to learn from our errors is critical to the defence of the realm, our people and our way of life.
	It is important to start by acknowledging the real strengths of our security services, which have thwarted a significant number of attacks. For that, the whole House thanks and congratulates them. However, it will not serve them or the safety of the British public if we do not learn from the mistakes made in these cases, the better to prevent them in the future.
	During the attack and in the immediate aftermath, the Government claimed that the bombers were previously unknown to the authorities, because they had no record of previous criminal or terrorist activity. We now know that that is untrue. Both Sidique Khan and Shezad Tanweer were known to the authorities in connection with another very serious terrorist bomb plot. On the basis of accounts in the newspapers, rather than the reports, it appears that Shezad Tanweer was picked up by a foreign intelligence agency one month before the attack, but that that information was never acted on by the UK security services, so I ask the Home Secretary whether that is true. Again on the basis of documentation given to newspapers rather than these reports, it seems that MI5 taped Mohammad Sidique Khan talking about his wish to fight in the jihad and saying his goodbyes to his family—a clear indication that he was intending a suicide mission. The newspapers also tell us that he was known to have attended late-stage discussions on planning another major terror attack that was subsequently thwarted. Again, I ask the Home Secretary whether that is true.
	Despite all that, the surveillance on Khan was called off months before the attack. Why? Was it, as intimated in the Intelligence and Security Committee report, because of a shortage of resources? Is it true that there were not enough MI5 agents to cover possible suspects and that that led to surveillance on dangerous terrorists being terminated on that occasion? The ISC report states that
	"better appreciation of the speed and scale with which the threat against the UK could develop might have led the Services to achieve a step change in capacity earlier".
	Did that occur because the resources for MI5 were not increased to meet the necessary step change until 2004, some three years after 9/11? And, because it takes three years to recruit, screen and train agents, the expansion will not take full effect until 2008.
	Two of the bombers went to terrorist training camps in Pakistan and undertook weapons training, as the Home Secretary mentioned in his statement. Paragraph 75(e) of the official account is very vague on that matter. It is said that the British intelligence agencies did not obtain any usable information on these people's activities from the Pakistani intelligence services. Why did that happen?
	We are also told—the Home Secretary alluded to it—that Khan and Tanweer met al-Qaeda leaders and discussed jihad with them. How, then, can the Government represent these people as members of an independent freelance group? If they are, how did al-Qaeda get a copy of Khan's suicide video in order to splice on to it its own propaganda, which involved its second most important member, before it was broadcast in September?
	I take the opportunity of paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who has done a remarkable job with his Committee, which produced an extremely insightful report, as the Home Secretary recognised. Having said that, although the Intelligence and Security Committee is impartial, wise and of the highest integrity, it is constitutionally limited in what it can achieve. That is partly because of the limitation on its investigative resources, partly because of its remit and partly because it is constituted in such a way as to be entirely dependent on the intelligence agencies for its information and on their willingness to disclose such information.
	The process has, frankly, raised more questions than answers. After the 9/11 tragedy, the United States Senate had a very well resourced and independent report with very hard-hitting conclusions. After Madrid, the Spanish Government had an independent report and learned serious lessons from it. In this country, after the Falklands war, even though secret intelligence issues were at stake, we had the independent Franks report. Almost every previous major intelligence failure was dealt with by an independent inquiry, but I am afraid that that is not what we have today in the official account, which expresses the Government's view rather than an independent view. As a result, the process has left too many questions unresolved.
	In the interests of people who have lost their lives and of protecting those who have not, can we now have what we should have had from the start—a fully resourced independent inquiry into what was clearly a major failure of our intelligence systems?

John Reid: No, not the integrity; the right hon. Gentleman did not question that, but he felt that the ISC was limited by statute and so forth.
	I merely point out, in the same spirit of generosity with which he welcomed me, that the scope, remit and statute under which the ISC was established was defined not by this Government, but by the Conservative Government in which the right hon. Gentleman served. Secondly, the reason for public inquiries, including the Franks inquiry, prior to the establishment of the ISC, was precisely because of the absence of such a scrutiny Committee. It was appropriate for the ISC to be given the task. It is independent of the Government and values its independence. To the best of my knowledge, it has been given as much assistance, aid and leeway as possible, and I believe that it has produced a very useful report.
	Let me turn to some of the hon. Gentleman's specific points. It was legitimate for him to raise them, and I will answer insofar as I can, without intruding into areas that affect operational matters. His first point was about several newspaper stories on the four bombers. As to the Tanweer story, relating to what happened a month before 7/7, I am told by the Security Service that it has no record of that allegation, so I do not think that there is a factual basis to it.
	What is known is that there was some peripheral intelligence of two of the bombers in connection with another investigation. So far as I can understand from paragraph 45, on page 14, from all the relevant intelligence material and the from independent scrutiny of the Intelligence and Security Committee, a judgment was made on whether the actions and assessments of the Security Service were understandable and correct at the time. The report confirms that the Security Service came across two individuals, who were subsequently identified as Khan and Tanweer, on the peripheries of another investigation. However, I should mention three heavy caveats.
	First, it was only after 7 July that the Security Service was able fully to identify the two men, given the massive concentration of resources then transferred. Secondly, there was no intelligence at the time that these men were interested in planning an attack on the UK in the UK. That is specifically alluded to on page 13, in paragraph 43 of the ISC report. Thirdly, the intelligence at the time did indeed suggest a focus, but either on training and insurgency operations outside the country in Pakistan, in which the men might be interested, or on fraud. In relation to the investigation at the time, it was peripheral to what was regarded as a bigger and more important operation. It is in that light, on that important subject—I accept that it is an important and legitimate one for the right hon. Gentleman to raise—that the ISC says
	"we conclude that, in the light of the other priority investigations being conducted and the limitations on Security Service resources, the decisions not to give greater investigative priority to these two individuals were understandable".
	Incidentally, officers followed up a report on the third bomber, Jermaine Lindsay, because again there was a peripheral connection to another case—of aggravated burglary—but it was only established later that the contact telephone number was on file.
	I dealt with that matter in some measure, because the right hon. Gentleman raised an important point. I shall turn to resources, which he also mentioned. I covered them earlier, but in the period after 9/11 until 2007-08, there has been a quadrupling of the resources available to the police and counter-terrorism. In the same period, across Government, there has been a doubling of resources for counter-terrorism and resilience, from less than £1 billion to more than £2 billion. At any given stage, there are physical limitations on what can be achieved, because of difficulties in recruitment, skills identification, training and so on. It is not merely a matter of applying resources and bringing in lots of people without relevant skills.
	Let me give two quotes. The director general of the Security Service told the ISC:
	"What we are trying to do is the maximum we think we can bear in terms of recruitment, training, vetting, expansion, scale, new officers, a big northern operations centre...it is a very challenging programme."
	In other words, according to the director general, the limitations are not the resources being allocated but the fact that the service cannot expand any faster.
	At paragraph 140 of the report, the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, C, said:
	"If you try to bring in more than a certain number of new people every year you can literally bust the system...you can only tolerate a certain number of inexperienced people dealing with very sensitive subjects."
	On al-Qaeda, there are circumstantial links, some of which the right hon. Gentleman pointed out: the recording of the video, the Khan reference to al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda's claim of responsibility and so on. There are assumptions and speculations about contacts. The ISC report says:
	"The extent to which the 7 July attacks were externally planned directed or controlled by contacts in Pakistan or elsewhere remains unclear."
	That is what I said at the beginning. The matter is still under investigation. Yes, there is circumstantial evidence, but I do not think there is anything that would merit my saying at this stage that there is conclusive evidence that the attack was planned in advance rather than being claimed as a success afterwards, ex post facto, by al-Qaeda.

Iain Duncan Smith: I start by welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his position. We are old friends and counterparts, and I genuinely wish him the best of luck in what are difficult circumstances.
	I simply refer the Home Secretary back to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). I am of the opinion that, on balance, following the right hon. Gentleman's statement, we need a more independent inquiry. I recommend the report from the Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), because it illustrates some of the weaknesses. Yes, the bombers are to blame absolutely, but we need to understand what has gone wrong, so that we can rectify it. In that spirit, I refer the Home Secretary to paragraphs 103 and 108, which suggest a complete misreading of some major issues internally in the UK; that of whether suicide bombings were every likely to take place in the UK or Europe, when there was already evidence of the shoe bombers and others in Tel Aviv, and also the idea that home-grown terrorists were not a major issue for the UK. Again, the Committee quite rightly points out that there was a great deal of evidence to suggest that that was not the case and that we should have been concerned.
	I am one who genuinely believes that we do this in the interests of the United Kingdom, our citizens and our friends, and of course, as a London MP, I include those who were devastated in the bombings. I urge the Home Secretary to think again about the inquiry, not because we want to point fingers, but because we desperately need to show the public that we have learned the lessons and that their security is paramount.

John Reid: Yes, indeed, and I thank my right hon. Friend for his work and that of his Committee. I assure him that I have already considered, and will continue to dwell on, some of the critical points that he has offered to us for consideration. There are points about the system of threat levels and alert states being confusing, the underplaying in the assessment of home-grown terrorism, the degree of failure to understand and apply strategic thinking to that, the limitations of intelligence not included in a sufficiently systematic way in intelligence assessments, and so on. I am well aware that we are talking about something that neither in its intention, nor in its outcome, reflects carte blanche agreement with everything that was done or with a whitewash. There are critical elements. That makes the general conclusions and the general commendations of what was done by the security services all the more pertinent and substantial.

Michael Mates: May I particularly welcome the Government's response to the specific recommendations of the Committee that the threat level and alert state system arrangements need clarity, transparency and simplicity? When will the review that the Government say have been completed be published, and, more importantly, when will the recommendations be implemented? Does the Home Secretary agree that part of the confusion that arose between threat levels and alert states was due to the fact that, although the threat level was reduced, the alert states were not? The alert states are the ones that matter to the people on the ground. In particular, as far as London Transport was concerned, that alert state remained very high and was not reduced. Finally, there have been reports in the press over the past few days that, had different decisions been made about the priorities, this atrocity might have been avoided. Is not the other side of that coin that, had the resources been put into trying to prevent this atrocity, one of the other atrocities that was prevented could equally well have happened?

Richard Ottaway: The Home Secretary has spoken of the challenge of understanding radicalisation. May I draw his attention to the ISC report and the admission by the Met that it was working on an out-of-date script when it came to understanding radicalisation? Does he agree that that is now a top priority? It is the most complex subject and there is no easy answer.

Stewart Hosie: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement and, especially, the increase to the budgets, with a doubling for resilience and a specific increase to the police counter-intelligence budget, both inside and outside London. I note that the right hon. Gentleman says that the intelligence community is growing as fast as the senior management believes is organisationally possible, and we have heard several comments about resources. Will he continue to urge the senior management in the intelligence community to identify new and innovative ways to use the additional resources that I know will be made available, which we on these Benches would very much welcome?

John Reid: Yes, I will. I know that both C and the director general are prepared to examine innovative ways of expanding quickly and so on. They are progressive and open in their flexibility to do so. However, just as it is impossible for me to guarantee that no other terrorist attack will ever get through, it would be wrong of me to suggest that there can be some form of infinite expansion of our security and intelligence services when I know that the skills, training, aptitude, vetting and experience required to carry out the jobs is considerable. The process thus takes time, and without having the almighty prescience of knowing what might come in the next generation, we will always be up against those physical constraints. It is true to say that the security services and agencies have been given anything that they have asked for as a priority. However, of course, if there are other areas that they feel are absolutely essential, I will look at them.

Diane Abbott: Like most Londoners, I remember exactly where I was when I heard the news of the 7/7 bombings and how frightened I was until I knew that the people closest to me were safe. The news was especially shattering coming, as it did, the day after our triumph in the Olympics. Does the Home Secretary agree that any successful long-term counter-terrorism strategy must have a community cohesion strand? Will he give the House an assurance that the round table meetings and work with the Muslim community that came after 7/7 will be followed through and that many of the important recommendations will be implemented?

John Reid: I very much agree, as I am sure that the whole House does, with my hon. Friend's second point. On her first point, international solidarity and action on borders, the transfer of intelligence and working together operationally are of increasing necessity not only inside the European Union, but with countries that are geographically far apart from the European Union. Those actions are especially important with countries that are largely composed of people of the Muslim religion or culture. In my previous job, in which, as the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) pointed out, I took interest and enjoyed, I had a great deal of discussions with some of those countries and formed operational partnerships with them. I am sure that such work will benefit greatly those countries and us because the threat is common to us all. The threat starts off as justifying attacks on foreign soldiers and ends up, in attack theory, as blowing apart innocent Muslim women and children in the streets of Jordan or Iraq. The whole of civilisation is challenged by the threat and should unite against it.

Dari Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement that the ISC report is factual and detailed, and is not a whitewash. It is important for the Committee that that statement is recorded, but it is even more important that the agencies back his statement. The report expressed concern that Special Branch is underfunded and does not have the capacity or capabilities required to deliver the right security and the investigatory responses required. Does his Department acknowledge that and, if so, what is it going to do about it?

John Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I have not yet occupied the post of Foreign Secretary—the Foreign Office is one of the few Departments about which I can make that categoric statement. On the serious point that the hon. Gentleman makes, I am not yet in a position to assess in which areas we wish to develop friendships and the exchange of information and intelligence, but my experience in the past few years, particularly in defence, is that there is an increasing awareness among all countries of all backgrounds of the common threat that we all face. I have had useful discussions with many countries in the Gulf, and I have had the pleasure and privilege of long conversations with President Musharraf of Pakistan and others. There is a growing awareness, as I said earlier, that there is a threat not just to one of us but to all of us. It is not a clash between civilisations—it is a threat to civilisation.

John Reid: I can tell my hon. Friend that I accept that we have a great deal more to do. May I make the general point that part the motivation of the four suicide bombers was a sense of injustice about the treatment of Islam throughout the world by the west? That is the starting point, but we need to go much further and appreciate what underlies that strength of feeling. None of that justifies suicide bombing—neither my hon. Friend nor anyone in the House is suggesting that it does—but the more that we understand one another and understand what motivates those people, including what shapes their development and the context of their beliefs, the better we can cope with the problem. That is why, in the aftermath of 7/7, we set in train, as I said earlier, short-term work, including a programme of ministerial visits to engage local communities. Many Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, are actively engaged in dialogue and action with faith communities. Whether we have reached the parts that we ought to reach is an open question, and that is something that I want to look at. I think, too, that it will be high on the agenda of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who places a strong emphasis on the matter. We shall try to make sure that that is an important aspect of the work that she carries out.

John Reid: I am asking for clarification of the details. My understanding was that there was not a sustained surveillance operation. Rather, the men were picked up as contacts of a primary target who was under surveillance. The answer that I have been given partly corrects me and is partly indecipherable. It has obviously been written by one of our intelligence agencies! The reply that I gave the hon. Gentleman was my original understanding. If it transpires that there was systemic surveillance of the men for any prolonged period, I will write to him.

HOUSING CORPORATION (DELEGATION) ETC. BILL

(Programme) (No. 2)

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	We had considerable discussion in Committee of a short Bill that enjoys widespread support in the House, both for its content, as I said, and for the need for a speedy response from Parliament to the issue that has arisen for the Housing Corporation. The provisions are not the most dramatic, but they are extremely important to the Housing Corporation, the housing associations that it regulates, the lending community and, ultimately, the 2 million people who depend on social housing.
	In Committee we undertook extensive scrutiny of the details of the Bill and its underlying purpose. I shall summarise the conclusions of that debate. The Bill's purpose is simple. It gives the Housing Corporation a power of delegation from board to below-board level, either to a committee of the board or to officials, with retrospective effect. It also deems the corporation always to have had such a power, since it was founded in 1964. Over the past 40 years the board had been acting, in good faith, on the basis that it had an implied power of delegation, until it was discovered at the end of last year that the board did not have that express power of delegation.
	It was not just the corporation that thought it had such a power, but everyone else with an interest, including the Department, the lending community, housing associations and the residents of housing associations. When the Housing Corporation was created, it was common for public bodies and non-departmental public bodies not to be given an explicit power of delegation. At that time, powers of delegation were more readily taken to be implied. Since then, the majority of bodies set up without explicit powers have been wound up or have had their legislation modernised to confer such powers.
	That did not happen in the case of the Housing Corporation because of administrative oversight on a series of occasions. Hon. Members asked whether we were aware of any other NDPB being in the same predicament as the Housing Corporation, but we are not. As I assured the Committee, we have examined all the NDPBs that were responsible to the former Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I will need to confirm that any new non-departmental bodies that may arrive in the Department as a result of the change in the Department's responsibilities are similarly checked, in order to ensure that we have addressed the issue. We have contacted the Cabinet Office, which is co-ordinating further consideration of the matter across Government.
	Hon. Members will be aware that as soon as the issue for the Housing Corporation was discovered, we set about addressing the many decisions that have been taken, so as not to leave housing associations, the corporation and lenders in a state of limbo about previous decisions that had been delegated.
	The Opposition raised concerns on Second Reading and in Committee about the retrospective nature of the legislation and the fact that it will legitimise past decisions that the corporation board had delegated. We had an extensive discussion of retrospective legislation on Second Reading and in Committee. We are clear that the concerns expressed by hon. Members about retrospective legislation do not apply. The Bill does not seek to alter the rights of individuals to the benefit of some and the disadvantage of others, or seek to unravel previous transactions that were undertaken in good faith with unforeseeable consequences. It does not attempt retrospectively to change people's understanding of the position that they are in; in fact, the converse is true. It seeks to restore what was thought to be the status quo and restores the parties to the position that they all considered, in good faith, they were in before the problem was discovered.

Michael Gove: It is a great pleasure to follow the Minister in this debate. It is also a particular pleasure to see the new Minister for Trade in his place on the Front Bench. I say that because this Bill is small and, some might argue, perfectly formed, in that it has attracted no amendments and comes to us in its original pristine form. It would therefore be natural for many to conclude that it was flawless from the beginning. Indeed, given the well known attachment of the new Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to the Roman Catholic Church, one might even say that it had an immaculate conception.
	However, I would not like anyone to think that this brief measure has passed through the House without scrutiny, because several hon. Members made valuable comments on Second Reading and in Committee. I should like in particular to pay tribute to the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), who is in his place, and my hon. Friends the Members for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), for St. Albans (Anne Main), for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands). I think that in every case where there were local elections in the constituencies of those of my hon. Friends who spoke on Second Reading, the Conservative party made gains—in some cases, sweeping gains. I would like to think that there was a direct causal connection between their commitment to extending social housing and Conservative success, but I suspect that other factors to do with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister may have played an even greater part in those results.
	While on the subject of Whitehall manoeuvres, I congratulate the Minister on retaining her portfolio. I would like to think that the Prime Minister was taking such a close interest in the passage of the Bill that he did not dare move the Minister during its passage lest it, or she, come to some harm—but I suspect that he may have had other things on his mind in the past week.
	As the Minister and the House will know, we have been happy, indeed eager, to assist the Government with this business, not only on the compassionate Conservative basis that we should help the vulnerable but because, as we outlined on Second Reading and in Committee, we think that the Bill is necessary and urgent. As the Minister made clear, it seeks only to correct an anomaly that came to light earlier this year. It will grant to the Housing Corporation the power to delegate that that body, and all independent observers, always believed that it had. It will regularise in law a state of affairs that has been ongoing for years, which everyone accepted and to which no one objected until an eagle-eyed lawyer discovered a technical breach in the corporation's constitution.
	At every stage of the legislative proceedings, the Minister has been helpful and to the point in explaining the need for the Bill. However, as hon. Members have raised certain questions during its passage, I should like briefly to explain why we believe that it passes the tests that qualify it for speedy transfer to the statute book. Any legislation should pass at least three tests: the test of necessity, the test of proportionality, and the test of consequentiality. First, is it necessary, or could we achieve this goal by other means? Secondly, is it proportionate, in that it does what it says on the tin, or does it carry within it additional measures beyond those required to achieve the desired effect? Finally, what consequences will its passage have on the broader legislative and administrative framework in which we operate? Does it create precedents, or will its operations have ramifications that have profound and unheralded consequences?
	As the Minister made clear, the Bill passes the necessity test. We all know that it is necessary to keep housing associations buoyant and effective and enable them to continue carrying out their superb job of providing social housing and acting as social enterprises. Their success has depended on their access to debt finance on competitive terms.
	As the Minister again made clear, lenders lend to housing associations because they have absolute security and first call on their assets. They have that security because of the section 9 consents that have been granted through prior legislation. In many cases, they were granted under delegated powers. If there is any uncertainty about the legality of the exercise of those powers, an element of risk is introduced. As we all know, introducing an element of risk into the lending process places a premium on loans. That means additional costs—for the taxpayer or housing associations or those in genuine need, who depend on social housing. We therefore share the Government's commitment to removing that risk, restoring certainty and helping those in need. That is why we believe that the Bill passes the necessity test.
	Let us consider the proportionality test. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough made some telling points on Second Reading and in Committee when he asked whether it was disproportionate to introduce a measure to deal with something that the Housing Corporation could tackle through a retrospective consent. There are some attractions in his case. However, the best advice from all lawyers is that both the Housing Corporation and housing associations would be on a securer and more certain footing if primary legislation were passed.
	Given the speed with which the House has considered the measure, and that we now teeter on the precipice of seeing it on the statute book, it appears foolish to argue that there is any method other than the original course of speedy legislation to provide the security and certainty that lenders, the Housing Corporation and housing associations deserve. The Bill is, therefore, not only necessary but proportionate. At 22 lines long, it tries to do nothing more than address the specific anomaly. Some hon. Members suggested in Committee that it should be used to achieve other ends. The Minister was attentive to their concerns, and promised to revert to them by other means.
	Let us consider consequences. The Bill is narrowly and precisely drafted, so few consequences flow from it other than the rectification of the existing anomaly. As the Minister was gracious enough to point out, it raises a specific question. Do any other non-departmental public bodies in Whitehall have similar or related loopholes or lacunae in their constitutions? She gave us an absolute assurance that all the non-departmental public bodies under her Department as it was before the recent reshuffle were covered, and that she would consider all those that now come within her bailiwick. She also assured us that the Cabinet Office would examine all non-departmental public bodies throughout Whitehall.

Daniel Rogerson: I concur with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. Perhaps it was the shortness of the Bill that encouraged hon. Members to go further afield in seeking points to raise in Committee.
	The Housing Act 1996 has been mentioned. During its passage, I was here as a student for a few weeks and had the honour to work for a week for Baroness Maddock, who was then a Member of this House and serving on the Committee that considered the measure. Little did I know then that one day I would rise, as a Member of Parliament, to address a packed Chamber on this subject—and I am delighted to do so.
	The Bill is sensible. It acknowledges a change in practice that has emerged during the operation of the Housing Corporation and its sister bodies in devolved parts of the United Kingdom. When the Housing Corporation was established, delegation was far less common in public bodies. The Housing Corporation's work load and responsibilities has increased because of the shift from local authorities' provision of social housing to more provision by registered social landlords. The Government, like the previous Administration, have tried to encourage that. If that is to continue, it is crucial that delegation be allowed to continue to ensure that local consultations can take place and effective decision making can happen at the appropriate level. The anomaly should have been picked up earlier, but at least it is being tackled now. We are considering a sensible tidying-up measure to reflect the reality. My party supports it for that reason.
	Several hon. Members raised the concept of retrospective legislation. I agree that in principle the House takes a dim view of it. However, as the Minister said, the Bill is trying to secure decisions that have been made in the past, not to undermine them. It aims to increase confidence in the sector. If the Government want to pursue further private investment in social housing as opposed to public investment through local authorities, such confidence will be crucial. Confidence is also crucial for tenants who want the housing association from which they rent to be in a secure position to ensure that their tenancy remains secure.
	The Bill also covers the possibility that some of the delegated decisions may have been wrong. At the prompting of a Labour Back Bencher in Committee, the Minister was keen to correct any misapprehension that the Bill's retrospective nature would allow incorrect decisions to go unchallenged. I am glad that she could reassure us about that.
	The Bill will secure the confidence in the sector that is needed to ensure continued investment. For that reason, my party does not oppose it. We look forward to the Housing Corporation being able to continue with its functions effectively and positively.

CONFIDENT CONSUMERS

Paul Truswell: On Consumer Direct, which is a splendid initiative on which the Government should be congratulated, West Yorkshire had one of the pilot schemes, which has proved successful and has been rolled out nationally. I know that my right hon. Friend will want to achieve value for money in relation to the number of calls fielded by Consumer Direct, but will he also consider the quality of the response given and not solely the number of calls made? In West Yorkshire, the service has a high satisfaction rate even though it might not be hitting the desired level of calls?

Ian McCartney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When I visit the Yorkshire and Humberside region in the next few months, I would be happy for him to join me in looking at Consumer Direct. I shall set out some of the facts to which he has alluded, which are important.
	We will need to ensure that Consumer Direct is not just value for money but gives appropriate advice. Let me describe some of the things that it has done in that regard. Consumer Direct has handled nearly 1.5 million calls since its launch. It currently receives 25,000 calls per week across England, Scotland and Wales. I can list the five most common complaints from consumers in 2005: 42 per cent. concerned defective goods, 17.8 per cent. concerned sub-standard service, 8 per cent. concerned misleading claims, 6.6 per cent. concerned delivery, collection and repairs and 3.7 per cent. concerned prices. One of the products that attracted most complaints was the second-hand car. Some things never change.
	People clearly like Consumer Direct. A recent customer satisfaction survey reported that 87 per cent. of callers were satisfied or very satisfied with the service. Eight out of 10 callers now feel confident about dealing with similar problems should they occur in future. Because of Consumer Direct, an extra 350,000 people will have access to clear practical advice this year. That means total benefits to consumers through advice on sorting out their problems—for example, money saved on repairs and replacements and through refunds—of at least £135 million.
	As well as educating consumers and giving them information, we are trying to improve consumer advocacy. That is why earlier in the year we announced plans to set up a new consumer body called Consumer Voice to bring together the National Consumer Council and some sectoral consumer bodies, including Energywatch and Postwatch, to represent the interests of consumers across markets and to offer the best possible consumer protection.
	We have also proposed new ombudsman schemes in energy and postal services to deal with consumer complaints when companies have not provided satisfactory resolution, and to provide redress where necessary. The new schemes will be able to enforce the resolution of consumer complaints on companies, and provide compensation. That means that service providers will need to take proper responsibility for resolving consumer complaints. An ombudsman scheme that charges companies per complaint will provide directive incentives for companies to do that. Such schemes already operate in the telecoms and financial services sectors, and we want to build on that good practice and extend it to other sectors.

Robert Smith: The Minister said that Consumer Voice would act as an advocate for the consumer. Will it be an advocate for the consumer in general, or will it be able to advocate on specific complaints on behalf of the individual?

Ian McCartney: In a few moments I shall give some good news about citizens advice bureaux. First, however, I have good news about the energy sector. Anticipating what would be done by other sectors, the energy regulator, Ofgem, has asked energy suppliers to appoint an ombudsman on billing complaints by July, and I know that the sector is working hard to achieve that. It must be borne in mind that existing consumer bodies such as Energywatch cannot—I repeat, cannot—decide on complaints or enforce redress for consumers. Ombudsman decisions are binding on companies but not on consumers, who can pursue their claims through other means if they wish. Ombudsman schemes are free to consumers: the companies pay the costs.
	Our plans were subject to consultation earlier this year. We expect to announce the outcome of that consultation, and the details of how we intend to implement our proposals, in July. We will need primary legislation, and if that is passed, it may be possible to introduce the first changes towards the end of 2007. When I know more, I shall write to hon. Members.
	As I said earlier, we have worked hard to establish better protection for consumers. Following the recent introduction of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, millions will enjoy greater protections when borrowing money. More than 74 million credit cards were issued at the end of 2004—the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) probably owns half of them—and about 50 per cent. of households have at least one credit agreement. The new Act constitutes the biggest overhaul of credit legislation since 1974 in relation to both rights and redress. It also changes the licensing of consumer credit businesses, and introduces new powers to drive undesirable elements out of the market.
	We shall implement the new Act in stages over the next two years. Consumers will then be able to take complaints about lenders to the financial ombudsman service, challenge unfair credit agreements in court and receive more information about the state of their accounts, which will help them to identify potential problems before it is too late.

Mark Prisk: The Minister's predecessor generously ensured that all the principal political parties could meet APACS regularly, particularly to discuss the Consumer Credit Bill, so that we could work on a cross-party basis to apply pressure for the changes that we felt were important. Does the new Minister intend to continue that arrangement?

Ian McCartney: As a former chairman of the Labour party, I am all for consensus with the Opposition. On this and other issues, when I think it appropriate for people to work together—when they need and want to work together—I shall be found to be most accommodating. I am strongly in favour of access to both Labour Back Benchers and Opposition parties. That is how we operated in the Department of Trade and Industry before. We did not always agree, but people could not say that they did not have access to me. I think that that was the right answer to give the hon. Gentleman. If not, I shall be given a black eye by my officials later.
	In addition to our objective of giving greater protection, another objective is to minimise the number of people who become over-indebted as well as to improving support for those who do. Credit is greater for those who can afford to repay it, but inevitably some get into financial difficulty and become over-indebted, often as an result of unexpected life events that throws up such as divorce, redundancy and serious illness.
	The impact of over-indebtedness on individuals and their families can be terrible. We aim to minimise the number of people who become over-indebted, as well as improving support for those who do get into difficulty. To that end we are funding, jointly with industry and other Departments, the National Debtline telephone advice service. We are also providing £45 million in a two-year programme to fund face-to-face debt advice, helping tens of thousands of families to tackle debt.
	The funds will pay for 500 new debt advisers to help people to get their debts under control. It will fulfil the Government's commitment to achieve a step change in the availability of debt advice. It will focus particularly on the financially excluded, who are most in need of such advice.
	About £16 million will go to citizens advice projects, about £7 million to other voluntary sector advice agencies, and the remaining £22 million to partnership projects involving both Citizens Advice and other advice agencies. Citizens Advice chief executive David Harks has said:
	"We are absolutely thrilled by this news, which represents a real vote of confidence in the debt advice already done by the CAB network, and means that a new generation of debt advisers will be able to help tens of thousands more people overcome serious debt problems."
	Steve Johnson, chief executive of AdviceUK, gave a similar endorsement of the proposals that I have just outlined.
	I mentioned earlier the Government's commitment to tackling loan sharks. It is often some of the most vulnerable and excluded who fall prey to these illegal money-lenders, so we are funding pilot projects in Birmingham and Glasgow to investigate the impact of strong enforcement against illegal money-lenders. We have invested £2.6 million over two years in the project, and both pilots are performing well. Three high-profile prosecutions have been secured in the midlands, and more are in the pipeline both there and in Scotland.

Ian McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. My constituency, like his, has been bedevilled by illegal loan sharks who terrorise individuals and communities. They have no place in our communities or on our streets and doorsteps. Such prosecutions and subsequent ones will send the clear message that there is no hiding place for these people, who inflict misery on families and communities, particularly the elderly and other vulnerable people.
	Prosecutions aside, the teams are preventing illegal money-lenders from operating by generating publicity for their work. They are demonstrating that loan sharks can, and will, be prosecuted, and directing victims toward seeking money advice, and toward third-sector lenders such as credit unions. Credit unions are an important means of accessing affordable credit. One of my first actions in my new role was to sign off legislation that will help the Treasury in its plan to encourage the growth of credit unions, so that they can offer loans to a broader range of people.
	I turn to the unfair commercial practices directive. The Government are committed to simplifying regulations in order to provide effective protection for consumers. That is why we will introduce into the UK regime—through the implementation of this directive—a general duty not to trade unfairly. That will assist us in tackling aggressive doorstep selling; scams requiring competition "winners" to call premium-rate numbers; bogus closing-down sales; the advertising of unavailable products at low prices to attract consumers, in order to then sell them higher-price goods; and false claims that consumers will get a better deal if they sign up immediately, to prevent them from buying elsewhere. We have already consulted business and consumers on how to implement this new law, and we will publish our response before the summer. We aim to introduce this legislation next year.

Paul Truswell: My right hon. Friend is displaying his customary generosity in giving way. Many of the scams that he has just described are perpetrated by fraudsters who use accommodation addresses provided by mailing companies. Such an address often proves to be just one of many post-boxes at a particular, sometimes prestigious location. A couple of weeks ago, I had an Adjournment debate on this issue. The Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner), was so impressed that he invited me to meet him and his officials to discuss the issue, and to bring trading standards officers with me. Given that my hon. Friend has been shuffled off to another Government coil, and that, essentially, this is a consumer protection issue, will my right hon. Friend pick up the baton and meet me and my posse of trading standards officers?

Ian McCartney: I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and his trading standards posse. I have not read his Adjournment debate, but I will put it in my red box—there is a name to drop—for this weekend. The problem that he refers to is a genuine one. I have visited some of these posh addresses, a number of which are in the City of London. Often, there is a very nice office full of display cabinets, all of which are locked. They contain the records of scam companies that every day throughout Britain are scamming pensioners and other vulnerable people and those who are unsure of their rights. Trading standards officers write to, or visit, the posh addresses given. The records are filed, and that is the last than anyone sees of them. These companies know that they are operating in this way. Those looking after such records know that such schemes are scams, and they are making a living out of doing so.
	We can do more, and should be doing more, to bring together all the enforcement bodies—trading standards officers, the police and others—to tackle the problem of dead postal addresses, which are a cover-up for illegal scams that cause misery in many parts of the country. Unfortunately, when they are closed down they often reappear. I will definitely meet my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) and his delegation to discuss this issue. However, as the proposals that I have set out show, the Government are very much on the front foot in dealing with it.
	On enforcement, we are making great strides in developing policies to deal with those who flout the law and harm consumers. In the long term, competition punishes bad business; in the short term, rogue traders can undercut decent firms and dent consumer confidence in the market. We need to protect vulnerable consumers, the vast majority of decent businesses and the market itself by cracking down on these crooks. That means effective enforcement. The Department of Trade and Industry's company investigation branch is a powerful weapon in the fight against undesirables such as those whom my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey is probably going to tell me about later.
	Investigations can lead to companies being wound up in the public interest. We are tackling scams on consumers and we work closely with trading standards, the Office of Fair Trading and the police. Last year, the Company Investigation Branch conducted 162 investigations and wound up 121 companies. A plethora of con artists, running charity scams, buy-to-let scams and dodgy ticket agencies, were targeted and have now been dealt with effectively.
	The amounts of money involved are staggering, but we have the power to put the firms out of business and we will be aggressive about doing so. Those targeted will include cowboy builders who cost homeowners thousands of pounds in shoddy and unnecessary building work; illegal doorstep salespeople, including those trying to sell financial and credit services; counterfeiters; and those who prey on the unsuspecting at car boot sales.

Richard Burden: Will my right hon. Friend also address the scams that target home workers, which still cause many problems for my constituents and others? People are promised thousands of pounds for work, but are required to pay upfront for meaningless kits and end up receiving nothing back. I introduced a private Member's Bill on the issue some years ago, which did not proceed, but there is still a problem and I ask my right hon. Friend to look into it.

Ian McCartney: I am trying to be fair to all concerned. We have a regime to combat such practices, but if my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield is saying that people have found different ways to get round that regime, I am happy to address that, together with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. We have been very hot on regulatory matters around the minimum wage to ensure that we deal with any potential loopholes. I welcome the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield and I will arrange for him to have a meeting with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I will liaise with him.

Michael Fabricant: I wish to be helpful. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) was talking about the scam where the supplier provides goods that the person has to pay for, on the understanding that when they have made those goods into some other item, they will be paid considerably more; in effect, for the value added. It is a complete scam, because people pay for the goods, do what is required to make the finished item and are paid nothing.

Ian McCartney: I will be frank in saying that that issue has not crossed my desk, but I will get a reply for the hon. Gentleman and place it in the Library so all hon. Members present can read it—as long as the reply is sufficiently coherent in terms of the hon. Gentleman's request.
	Many hon. Members are interested in the Government's review of any further liberalisation of Sunday shopping laws. I attended a stakeholder conference on that issue yesterday and heard first hand both the economic evidence and the concerns of stakeholders. The current laws governing Sunday opening were put in place 12 years ago. The Sunday Trading Act 1994 restricts large shops in England and Wales from opening for more than six hours between 10 and 6, and prevents them from opening at all on Easter Sunday. Sunday shopping hours have never been restricted in Scotland, but in 2003 the Government passed the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act to ensure that Scottish shop workers have the same right to choose not to work on Sundays as shop workers in England and Wales. The Government also supported the Christmas Day (Trading) Act 2004 which ensures that large stores cannot open on Christmas day, no matter which day of the week Christmas falls on.
	The fact that the regulations have been around for 12 years does not necessarily mean that they are wrong, but it means that it is sensible for us to review them. According to the Office of Fair Trading, which recently announced that it was studying certain areas of online shopping, internet retail sales in the United Kingdom have increased by 350 per cent. in the past five years. Between January and April this year the Department for Trade and Industry asked informally for the views and evidence on a possible extension of Sunday shopping hours. I have not yet seen the results, but I know that there is a wide range of opinions and some are exceedingly strongly held. This is the time for the Government to listen, so if I may, I shall say that I am shopping around for a few good ideas.

Ian McCartney: If I may, I shall finish the point. I know that the hon. Gentleman has strong views on this and he may want to make a speech. I ask the hon. Gentleman to hold on for a second.
	I want to run through some of the strongly held views to illustrate the strength and complexity of the debate outside the Chamber. No one will agree with all of them. Indeed, some may not agree with any of them. For example, some consumers are keen to be able to shop at all hours of the day and night; others cannot imagine why they would ever want to do so. Some employees value the chance to work on Sundays; others say that Sunday opening has made their working life more difficult. Some people feel it is not the Government's place to regulate in this area; others would like to see Sunday protected as a day of rest by as much regulation as possible. Some religious groups feel either that it is wrong that shops open at all on Sundays or believe that family life benefits from having a day in the week without shopping and that it is extremely important to the social fabric of the country. Some have commented that the current rules under which many shops open and close at similar times, for example 10 am and 4 pm, cause congestion on the roads and say that it would be better to allow shops to decide for themselves when they close, similar to the greater freedom now available to public houses.
	There is also a wealth of interest into the effects on small shops, as I have witnessed at first hand in the Makerfield constituency. Some people are worried that small shops near them might have to close; others think that it is good for small shops to have to raise their game to compete. Those and all other views expressed have to be weighed in the balance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I will look at all the evidence that we have received so far. I want to ensure that consumer and labour policies are well informed, even if we have to recognise that there will never be an overall consensus.

Ian McCartney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for trying for the second time in 18 years to be friendly to me. I, too, must be neutral in this matter. I know that he is trying to entice me for the best of reasons to comment on this. The whole point of what I have been saying is that we are genuinely looking to have proper consultation. I shall come to that in a minute.
	We have not yet reached a conclusion on what should happen with regard to Sunday shopping hours. Given that I have only just arrived in the job, it will be no surprise that I have a generally open mind. No decision will be taken until I have assessed all the evidence and given appropriate advice to the Secretary of State. Secondly, we have promised that if we decide to continue to look at the question of changing the restrictions on Sunday shopping hours, there will be a formal consultation on the issue. We will keep that promise. We have said, and this remains the case, that the legislative process will be transparent, with any changes part of a consumer Bill and subject to a full vote in the House.
	Thirdly, I give the House an absolute commitment that the special protection that shop workers have, allowing them to choose not to work on Sundays, is here to stay. The review will not include changing that protection because we are firmly committed to keeping it in place. Fourthly, I make it clear that the Government are committed to values of economic and social justice. Although the economic case is important, it is only one part of the equation. The Government support a greater work-life balance. We also support the regeneration of communities and we want to see small family businesses flourish. We also know that many large companies are at the forefront of community regeneration. Many have developed strong partnerships with unions and have taken a positive approach to campaigning to end age discrimination and allow older men and women to return to the labour market after many decades in which such people were not able to find work.
	Our consultations are on all aspects of relaxing the restrictions on Sunday shopping, and I look forward to hearing hon. Members' views on the matter. We know that there is a social impact whatever we do, whether it is leaving the current arrangements in place, extending the restricted hours or complete deregulation. This is not about being pro-small business or anti-big business; it is about being pro-all businesses but also pro the people who work in them. I am determined to try to strike the right balance.

Ian McCartney: The whole purpose of yesterday's stakeholder event was indeed that. This is about two things; the economic assumptions and the consultation document itself, which I am working on and hope to produce soon. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the timetable for that and its content when I have obtained agreement with my Secretary of State. I will also write to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), if that is helpful.

Ian McCartney: I want to conclude. I know that the hon. Gentleman has started to like me a bit more, but I have taken a long time to put the Government's case and I want to give the two Front-Bench spokesmen time to speak. I hope that what I have said has been helpful. I have been generous in giving way. I have set out a lot of detail. I hope that hon. Members can see how I want to prosecute the job that I now have.
	Our vision is to deliver a consumer and competition regime that creates confident consumers; a regime that provides help for the most vulnerable. What I have outlined today is designed to create those confident consumers, to arm them with skills to spot a bargain, to give them knowledge to exercise their rights when they are wronged and above all to protect them with the full force of the law. If we continue to fulfil those ambitions, I am sure that we will have a consumer regime that is fit for the 21st century.
	I apologise again for the length of my speech, but I hope that in the length there has also been quality.

Mark Prisk: May I begin by concurring with the Minister's remarks about his predecessor, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe)? He and I had a professional, courteous relationship, and I look forward to a similar relationship with this Minister. I welcome him to his new post. I say new, but, as he rightly highlighted, he was a Minister of State at the Department some nine years ago.
	It is true to say that neither the Minister nor I exactly tower over the Dispatch Box. I can recognise that, although I often feel that good things come in small packages. It has been unkindly suggested that many hon. Members look forward to he and I debating the working at height regulations.
	We welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue today. The Minister set out the Government's stall. I have to say, without causing him too much concern that things are getting a little too consensual, that we welcome much of what he had to say. However, there are questions of principle and practice that I want to raise.
	Why do we need consumers to be confident? In this context, that means that they should be informed and empowered. I contend that confident consumers will encourage higher standards among manufacturers, shops and other service providers. Equally, informed consumers can better recognise and avoid the scams or frauds that the Minister described.
	Confident consumers also encourage innovation and good value simply by using their spending power wisely. Sectors such as information technology or the computer games industry show how consumer feedback directly affects future product development. That increases our competitiveness and productivity and so contributes to making this country the best place to do business. Sadly, there remains considerable room for improvement: in 1997, when the Minister was last in the Department, the UK was the world's fourth most competitive country, but it is now the 13th.
	Informed and empowered consumers are good for their own welfare and for the economy as a whole, but what do those qualities mean in practice? Informed consumers know what advice they need and where to get it. They understand the consequences of their purchasing decisions but, with new and more complex products and services entering the market each week, providing that information is increasingly difficult. Ironically, it is in the areas where the financial consequences are greatest—financial services, for example—that consumers are often least well placed to make informed decisions. Indeed, I recently hosted a seminar on consumer credit that looked at issues to do with financial exclusion and education. We also examined ways to ensure that consumers are enabled, rather than trapped, by the choices that they make.

David Drew: The Financial Services Authority is tasked to do a lot of work in the area of consumer and financial education. I believe that the jury is still out on whether it has been effective, or whether its approach has been too laid back and complicated. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be good to know how much impact that work has had in schools? If younger people do not have the relevant knowledge, we will all be—to use the old expression—doomed.

Mark Prisk: I hate to admit that I am of the generation that understands the reference that the hon. Gentleman makes, but he is right that we need to establish the FSA's role in education. It has not been engaged in the process long, and some would say that it could face a conflict of interest in trying to be both regulator and educator. When the Government go ahead with the financial services consumer panel, it will be interesting to see what sort of relationship the panel has with the new advocacy bodies.
	Empowering customers cannot be achieved simply through education and information. Customers also need to have confidence that appropriate and convenient means of redress will be available and enforced, when that is justified. Clearly, there are many forms of redress to deal with the different harms that consumers can suffer, but they need to be accessible and effective.
	The Minister referred to the ombudsman system. It has worked well but, as expectations change, the standards of enforcement may need to change too. The central policy question has to do with how we create confident consumers. The responsibility must be shared between Government, business and consumers.
	It is the Government's role to ensure that the right balance is struck between protecting consumers—and especially the most vulnerable in our community, as the Minister rightly pointed out—and allowing business to trade without being handicapped by over-burdensome and often ill-considered regulation. The Government also have the responsibility to ensure open and competitive markets, in which business and consumers can operate. In addition, they should provide a legal framework that is clear, simple and easily understood, and put in place effective resolution and redress systems. Given the Government's ambition to make Britain among the best consumer regimes by 2008, is the Minister still confident that they will fulfil this target, and how far have they progressed to date?
	Business must also share in the responsibility. It is not, and should not be, the role of business alone to educate consumers, but I believe that it is clearly in the interests of reputable businesses to ensure that their customers are well educated and informed about their services and products. It is in their interest to be accessible to consumers, to make their offers clear and to be responsive to feedback and complaints. In fact, I would contend that that can be a source of genuine competitive advantage for businesses. The John Lewis Partnership, which was referred to earlier, is well known for its slogan, "Never knowingly undersold". That means that its customers can be confident that they will not be beaten on price. Recent showings suggest that the partnership is offering something that is well received by some customers.

Robert Smith: As in all things, if consumers are to be fully informed, they sometimes have to be careful. Something may be never knowingly undersold on the same product, but manufacturers produce many different models for different suppliers to allow a certain element of differential pricing for products that may not differ very much.

Mark Prisk: All of which generously leads me on to my third point. I believe that consumers themselves have a personal responsibility to take informed decisions. It is not for the Government to protect consumers who took rash decisions when they were in a position to have made an informed choice. It is right, in cases where information is available, to make a rational choice or decision, but consumers must face the consequences of their choice if they make it carelessly. In fact, if the truth be told, the distinction between Government, business and consumer may be partially false, for we are all consumers and we all have a responsibility to ensure that we are appropriately informed. The Government can, of course, help to ensure that the most vulnerable consumers are protected by clamping down on companies that use rogue practices. In the end, I still believe that the principle of caveat emptor should always remain the consumer's motto.
	Before I turn to the consultation that was mentioned earlier and deal with "consumer voice" and Consumer Direct, I would like to raise two specific issues with the Minister. First, he has had the pleasure of reading many papers this week, so he may be aware that we have been pressing for a national debate on the future of small shops. Promoting the health of our high streets is a classic example of how shared responsibility can work. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that there is a level playing field and that players within the market are not unfairly disadvantaged. That is why we welcome the Competition Commission's inquiry into the grocery market, so long as it is thorough and comprehensive. I am pleased to say that I have had a direct assurance from the commission that that will be the case.
	As the Minister and the House will know, allegations have been made of predatory pricing and unfair behaviour to suppliers. If they are proven, they must be exposed and dealt with properly. It is in the interest of retailers and consumers alike that those claims are investigated thoroughly because, in the end, if the final report produced after 18 months or two years is not trusted by the market, the danger is that we shall face calls for a fourth inquiry into the market. That would not be good for retailers, large or small, or for consumers.
	Equally, in addition to the role of the Government and business, it is the responsibility of small independent retailers to respond to changing consumer demand and to seek out and develop the new market. Most of them already do, but there is a need to encourage firms constantly to seek to improve and not to assume that the Government can always protect them from open competition.
	Consumers need to realise that they have a vital part to play in the shopping world. Many consumers rightly say that they value their small local shops. If they do, they have a responsibility towards them. After all, it is their spending power that can make the difference. They must recognise that if they genuinely value their local shops, they must use them. Indeed, that is one of the reasons I have endorsed the excellent campaigns by the  Evening Standard and, more recently, by Friends of the Earth, which have encouraged people to use their local shops more.
	The second issue is the growing concern about instances of alleged chip and pin fraud. This week, we have heard that hundreds of customers at garage forecourts have had their details stolen as they paid for petrol using their chip cards and pin numbers. Those incidents highlight the need for customers to make sure that they do not allow the advent of new technology to lull them into a false sense of security—as the Home Office knows, no IT system is completely foolproof. However, it is vital that consumers have confidence that the systems they use are generally secure. Given the clear public interest, will the Minister tell the House what action his Department is taking to establish the nature of the problem, what steps might be taken to minimise it and how the industry intends to maintain consumer confidence in what is after all a relatively new scheme? In particular, does he intend to meet APACS—the Association for Payment Clearing Services—to establish the facts? If not, I urge him to try to do so, although I appreciate that these are early days in his job.
	I turn to some of the Government's proposals to rationalise the process of consumer advice, advocacy and redress. In principle, there appear to be considerable benefits from such a move. However, there are a number of points on which we shall seek clarification and reassurance, not just today but as the Bill is debated and implemented. Indeed, the implementation timetable is one of the issues that concerns me.
	The Government have set out a timetable for consumer voice to be established as a shadow body by November 2007—the Minister alluded to that earlier—which will take up its full responsibilities by January 2009. Significant changes of that nature cannot and should not be rushed, but I would welcome, either today or when he has had the chance to consider them carefully, the Minister's views on the matter, especially on the measures that will be taken to avoid policy and management drift over what could be a three-year period as the existing system is phased out and the new one phased in. What arrangements will be made to ensure that staff are aware of the status of their employment so that they can concentrate properly on implementing the new scheme effectively? A distracted and unmotivated staff is in no one's interests.
	The Government hope that one result of a consolidated advocacy and redress system will be to deliver better value for money. Incidentally, I enjoyed the Minister's vociferous starter for 100 at the beginning of his speech and I look forward to similar exchanges of a partisan nature. On a non-partisan point, however, can the Minister give me an assurance that the attempt to seek better value for money is not actually a cost-cutting exercise and that there will be no net reduction in the resources dedicated to consumer support?
	As the Government contend in their document, the new joint association will be both large and powerful and will thus enhance the voice of the consumer in Government, which could prove helpful. However, there is a risk that other equally legitimate bodies could be marginalised in that policy development; for example, the Consumers Association and Citizens Advice, both of which are highly respected organisations. They have gained tremendous experience over the years and are trusted by the public. They perform a useful role and it will be important for the Government to make a clear commitment that such independent bodies are not crowded out by the Government's new, substantial advocacy body.
	What assurances can the Minister give me that the body will not prove overly dominant in both the advice and representation roles envisaged in the consultation document? Equally, it will be vital for the credibility of consumer voice that it is seen to be independent of, with the ability to dissent from, Government. Is the Minister satisfied that the structural arrangements proposed will provide that degree of impartiality and independence? The Government plan a range of options for the structure of consumer voice. Can the Minister give us an indication of their preferred option, and can he assure us that the views of all those consulted will be properly taken into account in reaching that conclusion?
	I think that the Minister alluded to this in his remarks, so I suspect that he will accept that an effective enforcement and sanctions system is only one of the ways in which responsible business practice can be ensured. Given the earlier comments about the Hampton review and the need to target energy on enforcement, what action will the Government take to encourage suppliers to manage complaints effectively, as well as to impose sanctions when they do not? After all, I very often think that carrots prove more effective than sticks.
	I would also welcome the Minister's views on how consumer emergencies will be handled. If a utility company, for example, fails to make urgent repairs, principal redress seems to lie in an ombudsman system and will very often occur some months after the event. Frankly, that is of little help to the people affected. Last year, Energywatch dealt with 280,000 such problems. Does the Minister, like me, understand that there is a possible danger that those consumers will be simply stranded by the proposed new system, which will work very differently from the current system?
	Will the Minister offer further clarification about where responsibility for consumer education will lie? We touched on that issue earlier, when the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who is sadly not in his place now, asked a question about it in the context of the financial services sector. What will be the role of consumer voice, given the existing role of the Office of Fair Trading? In particular, how will consumer voice co-ordinate its new role in educating consumers, which is anticipated by the Government, with the OFT's mandate to promote a "national consumer education strategy"?
	Informed and empowered consumers benefit us all. They can use their knowledge and spending power to get what is best for them and their families, and they are better able to avoid fraudsters and conmen. They can both encourage producers and retailers to raise their standards and businesses to innovate and respond to their needs. Where consumers recognise the wider social value of, for example, a healthy high street, they can support good local shops, which very often form the focus of both our rural and our urban communities. That is why effective competition and consumer laws are important to a modern economy.
	The Government have stated that their ambition is to create the best consumer regime by 2008. That is a good ambition, if it is tempered by a recognition that consumers' rights must be balanced with responsibilities and, frankly, that each of us—the Government, business and consumer—share those responsibilities. But effective consumer policy must also balance the rights of the consumer with a healthy attitude to vigorous but fair competition and a recognition that, if we hamper business with unnecessary rules and regulations, none of our worthy ambitions can be realised.
	I look forward to hearing from the Minister—whether at the end of the debate or in writing—on the points I have made, and I certainly look forward to what I can see will be a lively debate, as the Bill is developed and presented to the House.

Robert Smith: I, too, welcome the debate as a chance to take forward the issue of consumers and the important role that empowering consumers can play in helping not only the individual but the economy, business and the general well-being of society. Creating confident consumers clearly not only needs informed consumers and fair competition, but for consumers to have the tools to make use of the information—the numeracy and literacy skills and the understanding of risk—because what goes wrong with many products and what causes many problems for consumers is that the person who is doing the selling can take advantage of their misunderstanding of the risk profile of what is being sold. A good consumer regime will benefit business and allow good businesses to thrive.
	The Minister touched on the structure of the Department of Trade and Industry, and we still believe that a separate Department of consumer affairs would put the voice of the consumer very much at the heart of Government and separate out the Department's responsibilities for advocating the needs of business and consumers. In reply to my intervention, the Minister said that he would write further on the subject of the consumer and trading standards agency, but if the agency is to be effective it must be effectively resourced, and it must be brought together in a way that ensures that the sum of the parts is greater than that of the individual organisations that make it up.
	As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) has made clear, the Competition Commission's welcome reinvestigation of supermarkets will help consumers by ensuring that there is a fair and level playing field for local shops. I reinforce the message that if the local shop is valued, it will be used. The shop will be there only if consumers are there to make use of it. Competition is one way in which consumers can benefit. The liberalisation of the car market and the opening up to competition of the sale of cars has improved the rights of consumers. They have benefited from price reductions and a more open market. Making sure that there is effective and open competition can often be the way to benefit consumers.
	Consumers can also ensure the delivery of other concerns. A consumer's decision is the sum of all sorts of different interests that they have when they go out to buy a product, such as the price and the benefit of the product to them. Consumers also quite often have a wider interest. The fair trade movement has shown that those who are concerned about the conditions of suppliers in less developed countries can influence behaviour through their consumption. However, they need to be informed. The Minister should reconsider the Government's decision to abandon the operating and financial review requirements of company law that would have forced companies to make sure that consumers had information on how they traded and operated. That would have meant that the market was more informed. As he recognises, informed consumers are able to make those decisions. If consumers do not have all the facts to enable them to assert their views, they will miss out.
	I welcome the Consumer Direct approach, which means that the informed consumer knows where to go to access information to take up their case and to make their case more strongly. Clearly, that organisation is guiding many consumers to the right place to assert their rights. Many consumers are able to assert their own rights, but I am concerned about the "consumer voice" role. In certain specialist areas—particularly energy and the postal services—where complex nationalised monopolies have been regulated and privatised and complex markets are involved, we need to be careful about the loss of individual advocacy. The Government may want to reconsider to ensure that less informed consumers and vulnerable consumers, who cannot assert their own rights, do not lose out; I shall come back to the energy sector in that context. If consumers have to rely on an ombudsman scheme, they have to access that scheme. The great benefit of what Energywatch and Postwatch have done in the past is that they have taken up individual problems on behalf of consumers.
	We need to look at the effectiveness of delivery in a wide area of consumer concerns. The telephone preference service assists people who face unwanted calls. People register with that service. However, what is being done to deliver what those people want? People still get the calls, and then they make a complaint. Some of the top companies have 1,800 complaints against them, but still have not faced a fine for breaking the rules of the telephone preference service. Clearly, consumers are trying to make use of a service to assert their rights, but the Information Commissioner needs more effective powers and resources to deliver what the consumer wants from the telephone preference service.

Robert Smith: It is a mixture of both. The Information Commissioner's department is snowed under with freedom of information inquiries, so he may well have a resource problem. If he had effective resources, he might be able to make use of the sanctions and fines. However, as fines have not been levied, he might need more powers to make it easier to impose sanctions.
	I have a worry about the regulation of financial services. There have been attempts to protect consumers from buying products that are not suitable, or do not deliver what is expected, and to ensure that consumers are informed. However, as financial products become more effectively regulated, it is possible to link them more imaginatively to products that are less regulated. Financial products for buy-to-let might be well regulated, but the information that a person gets about the underlying property, such as its value and the likely expectations built into the product, might well be less regulated and effectively delivered.
	As the world becomes ever more complex, it is important that regulators are able to see beyond the part of a product that they are regulating and examine the underlying substance of what is being sold to the consumer so that consumers can make informed and effective decisions. We could, as a nanny state, stop people from making their own choices, but we should not do that. If people want to expose themselves to high-risk property speculation, they should be able to do so, but they should do that in an informed way, with the knowledge that the underlying product is at risk.
	The Government have not only the role of enforcement and ensuring that the right regulations and systems are in place, but the fundamental role of setting an example through the way in which they deal with consumers. A classic example of the way in which the Government are setting a bad example is the Post Office card account. Consumers took out the account in good faith and the belief that it would be a permanent product. They did not know that behind the scenes the Department for Work and Pensions had always assumed that the accounts would come to an end in 2010. The Government preach to the private sector that they should treat customers in an open and transparent way, but they are setting a poor example.
	The Minister talked about the danger of over-indebtedness. The Government need to understand that many people use the card account specifically to avoid the risk of over-indebtedness. Many such people have a bank account for savings, but choose to use the card account for their regular budgeting, in part because they know that they are at absolutely no risk of being exposed to charges, or £20 or £30 letters from the bank to tell them that they are overdrawn. The preferable option would be to keep the card account, but if the Government are not going to, they must ensure that there is a Post Office product in place that offers the same protection from indebtedness as the card account.
	The Government could have given a lead to industry with the way in which they treated the ombudsman's report on pensions. However, given the way in which they rejected the report quickly and summarily, what kind of example did they set to the wider industry on how it should respond to an ombudsman service, which is the Government's preferred solution to ensure that there is effective dispute resolution?

Peter Bone: I draw the attention of the House to my declarations in the Register of Members' Interests, particularly as a director of AJWB Travel Ltd.
	It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), who made some powerful points. I shall deal with some that he did not mention. The debate is entitled "Creating confident consumers" and we could probably discuss such an enormous subject until midnight. Introducing the debate, the Minister had a go at the Conservative manifesto, when he said that we would drastically cut back the Department of Trade and Industry. As I understand it, unless he has changed his mind, the Department's numbers are to be cut by 30 per cent. If we are trying to create confident consumers and increasing protection, will the Department have the resources to do it? Perhaps the Minister could deal with that when he winds up.
	We speak of consumer confidence as though it applies to the private sector. Of course, it is equally important in the public sector, and that has not been discussed today. Children are perhaps the most vulnerable consumers. They are consumers of education, and they have the right to be confident that they are safe where they are being taught, yet the Minister could not give me an assurance that all future schools would be protected by sprinkler systems. That would protect consumers and build confidence. One of the problems may be that the Government are prepared to undertake prevention, but not reaction. However, the topic may not be entirely germane to the debate.

Peter Bone: I am grateful for the Minister's clarification. I understand the point, but I also understand that if the Government introduce extra prevention, they propose to withdraw reaction by cutting back on the fire service. That concerns me, and I look forward to the outcome of the consultation.
	The Minister also spoke of introducing legislation for the security industry to protect consumers, which I welcome. The problem is that the Government did not provide the resources or allow time to register people in the security industry, so for some months, the industry has been in flux. People who should be registered are not registered, and people who are acting illegally should be closed down. It is rather a mess. When consumer legislation is introduced, I urge that enough time should be allowed for the right regulation to be enforced and that it is not rushed through.
	Creating confident consumers in the health service is particularly important. Back in November, the Prime Minister gave a guarantee to consumers of the health service that nobody would have to wait more than six months for an in-patient operation at an NHS hospital. The Government failed to meet that in November, December, January or February. The number of people waiting more than six months is growing.
	If we are to create consumer confidence in the NHS, should there not be some quick remedy for those who wait more than six months, when there is a guarantee—not a target or an aspiration, but a guarantee—that they will not have to wait more than six months? Should there not be a method whereby they can be transferred to another hospital for an immediate operation, given compensation or treated in the private sector? If we expect companies in the private sector to meet all the regulations, why do we not expect the Government to do so?
	The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine spoke about citizens advice bureaux. I am told by citizens advice bureaux in my constituency—I expect hon. Members across the country hear the same comments—that they are dealing with more and more debt management problems. Unfortunately, some of those are coming about because vulnerable people have been given tax credits, have found that they have been overpaid and are being asked to pay back thousands of pounds. I have had people in my constituency office in tears, saying, "I can't possibly meet these bills—what are my options? Am I going to go bankrupt? I can't sleep. My marriage is on the line." Those problems are being sorted out by local citizens advice bureaux. I was horrified to learn that no Government money goes directly to them, but only to the national organisation. If the Minister wants to improve debt management, and I think that he genuinely does, I am not sure that creating a semi-state advice centre is the way forward. That money should be given directly to local citizens advice bureaux, which have the great advantage of being seen to be completely independent of the state and of business, and will give impartial advice. That would represent a change in attitude from the Government, who always seem to think that they can impose from the top, whereas this would be a great solution from the bottom upwards.
	The Minister is right to say that ombudsmen have a significant role to play in protecting vulnerable people if the banks do someone wrong, as they often do. The process may be lengthy and frustrating, but it does not cost anything, and ultimately the bank is bound by it but the person is not—they can still challenge the ombudsman's decision through the court if they are not happy with it.
	I fail to see why the Government cannot accept that principle when it comes to themselves. They are the only organisation—the most powerful organisation in the land—who, when they are found guilty of maladministration, say, "Sorry, but we don't agree; we're not guilty" I am sure that half the time banks do not think that they are guilty of maladministration, but they still have to pay up. If the Minister could go back and say, "We've been unfair to these pensioners", I think that the country would say, "This Labour Government are beginning to listen." However, I fear that that will not happen.
	I should like to talk mainly about the travel industry, which I have been involved in for several years. When it first developed, many years ago, people had to pay a fortune to go abroad, and only the rich travelled. Then came the invention of the package holiday, Freddie Laker and the Association of British Travel Agents. People went into their local travel agent, looked at brochures, and picked a holiday. If the holiday company went bust, they were covered either by ABTA or the ATOL—air travel organiser's licence—system. Everybody had consumer confidence, and in a highly competitive industry, no consumer ever lost out.
	Now, the travel industry has moved on. People do not necessarily go to their local travel agent because they are able to book online or by telephone. A system called dynamic packaging has been introduced, whereby people do not book a package holiday but book the airline, hotel and car separately. It is also called split contracting. The problem with that system is that if any provider of the travel arrangements goes bust, the consumer is most unlikely to be covered by protection. If they have booked online, they are not covered in any form whatsoever. They will have an element of protection if they happen to have paid by credit card, but most people do not like to do that because they have to pay a fee on top of the cost of the holiday. If a major low-cost airline were to go bust, many thousands of people would lose out.
	The waters have been muddied even further by the European Union. There is an EU directive on travel that is so incomprehensible that I am sure that the Department of Trade and Industry does not understand it, let alone local travel agents and consumers. All the EU has done is confuse matters. People could book a holiday to America on an American airline, which might fly under chapter 11 protection. In other words, it might be bankrupt. Many consumers in this country are likely, sooner or later, to lose a great deal of money. I fear that the Government will be blamed for sitting on their hands.
	The travel industry has welcomed a proposal to charge a levy of £1 on every ticket, thus building up a fund. Every consumer would then be covered. It is a simple solution that does not require all sorts of bonding or ATOLs. People would be covered whether they booked through an ABTA agency or online. Such consumer protection would give people great confidence. I urge the Minister to consider that because the travel industry is highly competitive and produces great value for money. In the past, when big firms have gone bust, all consumers have been protected. I fear that, although we still have the highly competitive industry, we also have difficult times because of higher fuel costs and the possibility of booking with airlines that fly under bankruptcy protection, and consumers could lose a lot of money.
	I appreciate that the Government's heart is in creating confident consumers but I sometimes worry about their methods.

Robert Smith: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's careful analysis. I wonder whether a different Department will relate to the consumer on the matter that he is considering. Does he agree that the Government need to work across Departments to effect their values for dealing with consumers in all sectors?

Peter Bone: That is a valid point. The attraction of the proposal that I mentioned is that it is simple and straightforward.
	The Government often set out to do things but create so many regulations and complicate matters to such an extent that no one is genuinely protected and the industry is burdened with huge costs. In the case that I am considering, the industry would not be burdened with such costs and the consumer would be protected. That is a good way forward in creating confident consumers in the travel industry.

Tony Lloyd: First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my right hon. Friend the Minister for missing part of the opening speech.
	The debate is important and well informed, and there is a measure of agreement between all parties on some of the issues. I want to speak about the role of information in creating confident consumers and mechanisms for protecting them. I also want to speak about my trade union interests and those who supply the consumer with information. Consumers can be confident only if those who serve them are well trained and motivated.
	It is obvious that consumers need access to adequate information to be confident. In several services—for example, financial services—that we all use, such information is not available. Most of us are used to the plethora of credit card letters on our door step every morning that offer us many different deals, structures and so on. That does not inform consumers, it simply bewilders them. One of the problems with financial services is that, although we have a system of necessary regulation, we have no system of standardising the important parts of product information. I hope that my right hon. Friend, as Minister responsible, will consider the matter. The Treasury Committee recommended that in one of its most recent reports and I strongly endorse the recommendation.
	Let us consider food provision. We have perhaps become a more cranky and individualistic society in many ways. That is healthy and what consumers should do when there is choice. We have taken huge steps forward on food labelling, some of which have been absolutely vital. Some of my children have specific allergies, and they need the protection that proper labelling can provide. One of my daughters has an allergy to corn, for example, and it is important for her to know when a particular food product contains corn. We have made advances in the provision of information on food products, but we have not yet gone far enough to give consumers the confidence to make these choices. There may be personal moral choices involved—for vegetarians, for example—or health choices.
	I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider one particular anomaly in the food production system. It is perhaps a difficult question, but it is worth examining. It involves the big gap that now exists between the producers of food sold through shops and those who produce for the restaurant or café trade. Food labelling in restaurants and cafés is still virtually non-existent, and we need to look at that issue if we are to offer adequate protection to the public.
	I agree with the points made by Opposition Members about what we should be looking for in our systems of regulation. It worries me that our big utilities are quite resistant to the consumer. I have experienced this myself; my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is also a north-western MP, will know—I say this perhaps a little unfairly—that it is not always a joy and a pleasure to try to get through the almost impenetrable wall in order to deal with United Utilities. That can be difficult even for a Member of Parliament, and it is often much more difficult for someone who genuinely has a leak in their water supply. The same arguments apply to the other utilities and energy industries.
	I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by Opposition Members on the role of Energywatch. When we change the way in which we protect consumers, we must be careful not to throw away the advantage of the personal service that Energywatch has provided. We must recognise that we need that type of direct advocacy service when dealing with the large utilities. Perhaps we can manage to retain that, with Consumer Direct as well. It should not impossible to ensure the continuation of the good work that Energywatch has done in the past.
	In some industries, regulation is not yet up to speed. Legal services have been mentioned in that regard. I have never been a great fan of the Law Society being the regulator of solicitors when complaints are made against them. We need to look at how we regulate such services. Fortunately, most of us use them only rarely, but it can be very stressful for people when things do go wrong. I am sure that all Members of Parliament have had that experience.
	Many years ago, I had a fairly detailed knowledge of the building trade. I know that it still contains those who glory in the title of the cowboy builder and, alas, from time to time, my constituents come face to face with these people. It is difficult to determine how much and what kind of regulation we should have such industries, and I am prepared to accept that sometimes the most appropriate regulation can be provided from within the industry. However, those services are not comprehensively regulated at the moment.
	There are interesting examples from other countries, in which membership of a trade association is mandatory, and that may or may not be a way forward here. I can see the value of such an arrangement, because trade associations can help to inspire confidence by providing properly structured trade agreements that offer the necessary protection. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) mentioned his own experience in that regard. Such an arrangement could serve as a model for the building trade.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned shop workers and Sunday trading. It is axiomatic that, if we are to create consumer confidence, our consumers need to be served by well motivated, well trained staff, be they shop workers or people who work in the hospitality industry. We still have some way to go in this country in relation to changing public attitudes towards people who serve in those roles. Unlike in the United States, their jobs are sometimes seen as menial. However, many of our constituents now look to those industries for employment, and we need to guarantee that they will have a system of career development through properly structured training schemes. Trade unions have a strong role to play in that form of training and education.
	In that industry, in which there is direct contact with consumers, not all of whom are confident and decent, violence against shop workers, for example, is a major issue. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has been anxious to campaign on that recently. It is legitimate to promote responsible as well as confident consumers, and one of their responsibilities is not to assault physically or abuse verbally those engaged in providing such services.

Mark Prisk: The hon. Gentleman is right that where companies clearly abuse their position, they must be dealt with thoroughly and properly. Does he also accept, however, that one of the ways in which we can change behaviour among businesses is to use the carrot rather than the stick; to show that, for many businesses, customers value good service, which therefore provides a competitive advantage? That language might be more likely to encourage the vast majority of people involved in business and in providing services, public or private, to up their game?

Tony Lloyd: I probably did not explain my original point fully—I was talking about the customer, not the company. Assaults on shop workers are, I hope, rarely done by their employer; it is not a good motivational technique in the modern world.  [Laughter.] We certainly know of cases in which shop workers have been assaulted by irate customers, and all of us have probably been irate customers from time to time, but that is not an excuse to subject those who provide such service to physical or verbal abuse.
	The hon. Gentleman makes a credible point; there is a strong role for companies in recognising that the provision of high-quality service, which requires highly motivated, well-trained staff, is also in the corporate interest. The best companies do exactly that, and we hope that that spreads throughout industry.
	Finally, I want to refer to the debate about the consultation on Sunday trading. My right hon. Friend the Minister, who is new to his job, must take a dispassionate, neutral attitude. However, I do not feel that I must be neutral or dispassionate. We altered the laws on Sunday trading only 12 years ago. At the time, a compromise was struck between those who argued from different perspectives, ranging from those who wanted no Sunday trading whatever to those who wanted total deregulation. That compromise recognised the different feelings in society. Of course, society is not static, so there is no inevitability that we will stay where we are for ever. Not enough has changed in those 12 years, however, to alter that fundamental compromise.

Ian McCartney: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the Leader of the House, on whom the hon. Gentleman will have to use his persuasive talents. But whether or not that debate takes place, day in, day out, this Government will act to support small businesses, while you talk about it.
	The hon. Gentleman made a serious point about the need for action and financial capability. I agree that it is important that consumers have the knowledge and understanding necessary to manage their money. The Financial Services Authority is taking the lead in work on financial capability. It has launched a range of initiatives, targeting employees and parents in particular, to provide people with simple tools to enable them to assess their financial position and borrowing. As part of this strategy, we will introduce financial education into the core curriculum from 2008.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked whether I will meet representatives of the Association for Payment Clearing Services to discuss chip and PIN fraud. Credit card fraud is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, whose Ministers have regular contact with APACS. I can however assure the hon. Gentleman that I will meet APACS representatives to discuss a range of issues, including this one. I will not be dishonest and say that such a meeting is already in my diary, but APACS is among a list of organisations whose representatives I will be meeting very soon. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me on this issue, I invite him to do so.
	It is important not to rush change, and we judged the proposed time scale for the introduction of consumer voice as sensible. We fully understand the importance to staff of stability, and we are closely consulting existing bodies, including staff representatives. This is in no way a cost-cutting exercise. The National Consumer Council is Government funded and is at the core of the establishment of consumer voice. There is no intention to marginalise citizens advice bureaux. All such bodies are working closely together with the NCC.
	Consumer voice will be a statutory, independent body, which, I believe, is the commitment that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford and others were looking for. We are considering our response to the consultation now, and we will announce the preferred option in July. Given that I have come late to this issue, I will read all the consultation documents, rather than simply looking at the recommendations made to me. I am very happy to consider the views and opinions expressed here today. If the hon. Gentleman has further opinions that he wants to express, I invite him to do so over the next few weeks. I give a genuine commitment to considering them in reaching my conclusions on the option to be announced in July.
	There is no better incentive for companies to resolve complaints themselves than having to pay ombudsman's costs. The new body will have specific responsibilities for vulnerable consumers in areas such as energy. The Office of Fair Trading has a key role to play in consumer education. Like Postwatch, Energywatch has a low public profile, and it cannot enforce compensation. I should point out that there are not 280,000 stranded customers; that figure includes all those who phoned to make a simple inquiry.
	Energywatch can act as an advocate, but it cannot enforce solutions. On issues such as disconnection, I agree that a faster track is needed. Energywatch is consulting Ofgem on a new billing ombudsman and speeding up the processes. Consumer voice is able to retain specialist panels in relation to energy and other issues, so it has the capacity to act independently and consider issues that arise. I have no doubt that Members of Parliament, consumer organisations and consumers themselves will try to influence the work load of the body.
	I noticed that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) made a new financial commitment for a new Department. However, he did not say what would happen to state aid, regional aid and the Small Business Service. He was careful, but I caught him out in one small aspect of that disastrous policy announcement. He has tried to cauterise the wounds, but as his proposal stands, all the other services of the DTI, including insolvency, would be lost.

Robert Smith: The Minister is exaggerating. If he looks at our manifesto from the last election, he will see that responsibility for energy would be put with environment and transport, which logically belong together. Responsibility for consumer affairs and the voice of business would go to the Treasury and consumer protection would go to the new consumer Department. Regional aid would be devolved to the regions. Such a reorganisation is a matter for another debate, and I suggest that the Minister concentrates on the consumer affairs aspect.

Ian McCartney: The Government have been careful to work with the Post Office to provide improved services for pensioners, including the Pension Service and the card account. I feel a "Focus" leaflet coming on from the hon. Gentleman, but I hear what he says and I will put his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. He can rest assured that this Government, more than any other, have supported the Post Office in all its aspects, including services to its most vulnerable customers, especially pensioners.
	The Government intend to introduce a legal services board, with specific responsibilities for competition and consumers. I will get an appropriate Minister to write to the hon. Gentleman about that with further details.
	On the building sector, the Government have supported a trust mark scheme to provide reassurances that the consumer is employing a good builder or property repairer.
	The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) raised a number of interesting points. Like me, he was consensual one moment and partisan another. I will try to deal in equal measure with the issues that he raised, but I am not sure that I can manage that.
	There were some problems on the security industry registration. Let us be straight about this. The vast majority of people not being registered could not be registered because of their criminal record. The point of introducing the registration scheme was to clean up the act and stop the industry being undermined by cowboys. This is a good industry. It is a good employer and an international industry. It provides global public and private services from the United Kingdom. It will continue to grow as we need the services of that industry in many areas. When I first raised the issue, the industry was worried, but it now has a protection that will help it expand and offer new services here, in Europe and beyond.
	I am proud that there are people in my community who are not registered. They should never have been in the industry in the first place. I am glad they are out of it and will not get back into it. Those who are in the industry can now join a union and get better pay and training. The training system is recognised. There is security in the industry. Those working in it have a skill and can be respected. Many of those who work in it, particularly door security people, are good, skilled and knowledgeable. Unfortunately, on occasions they face violence caused by drink or other reasons. Because the industry has been cleaned up and because these people have skills, knowledge and a clean record, the industry as a whole will flourish. I am pleased about that, as I hope the hon. Gentleman is.

Peter Bone: I agree with the Minister. My point was that the regulation and the administration of the regulation were poor. Two of my constituents were just as the Minister described: the right sort of people to be registered, yet their forms were rejected because apparently they had not signed in the little box. In fact, they had. My point was that the resources were not there to implement the scheme properly.

Ian McCartney: The resources are there. Mistakes are made on occasion, and the hon. Gentleman, who has been in the travel industry, knows that. My God, many a holiday has been spoiled by a technical mistake. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have now registered and have a career. I am sure that they have. Over the years many of my constituents have just had to say goodbye to their holiday. We will come back to that because it is a good tale to tell about that industry too. Mistakes can and do happen, unfortunately. We have lots of regimes so that whenever there is a mistake, there is a remedy for it—not just a legal or financial remedy. The big issue is getting cultural change within business systems and organisations to prevent mistakes in the first place. Rather than a remedy afterwards, prevention is always the best policy. Where that breaks down because of human or business frailty, whether public or private business failure, there must be a remedy. In my speech today I have tried to set out a framework, showing the Government's ambition to make this a world-class regime. I hope that by taking it step by step that is exactly what will happen.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other issues. On the national health service I can well remember coming here and agitating on behalf of constituents who were waiting for heart operations or cataract operations, not for 18 months, but two years. Across the country constituents were waiting for nine months, 12 months, 18 months or two years. There was chaos. An average wait in hospital during the winter months under the Conservatives could be 20, 21, 22 or 24 hours. Take your pick. There have been substantial changes in the NHS. It is a good news story. Thank goodness we won the last election. The hon. Gentleman supported a manifesto to take at least £1 billion a year out of the NHS and hand it as a subsidy to those who already had private health care.
	The Government have an absolute commitment, and I hope that the Conservative party will do a flip-flop and support it. We have promised end to end 18 weeks from seeing your GP to having a successful operation. We have made that promise, and it will happen. In the interim, across Britain, you now have a choice to go to another hospital if you cannot get the service at your local one. That includes if necessary attending a private hospital as an NHS patient, receiving treatment free at the point of use based on your medical need. [ Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford may complain and grumble, but his hon. Friends raised the matter on the basis that NHS patients are consumers—

Ian McCartney: I am the consumer Minister, and thank goodness I am. Any job I do, I will make a success of it. I may be a small man, but I am a bigger man than the hon. Gentleman in all respects. He can take that how he likes.
	The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) said that citizens advice bureaux did not receive any direct Government funding. That is not correct. Earlier I announced that we will be giving £45 million to fund debt advice services and £16 million will go to projects led directly by Citizens Advice. It will also receive a share of the £22 million going to projects run jointly with other advice agencies. So we are giving substantial funding.
	When I was a Minister in the Cabinet Office between 1999 and 2001 we gave substantial assistance—millions—to the CABs to invest in infrastructure so that they could interconnect on advice, services and training. They welcomed that. Local authorities also support the CABs. It was to the eternal shame of the Conservative Government that they cut substantially resources to the CABs. We have not only put it back but bettered it, and rightly so.

Ian McCartney: I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying to get himself off the hook he put himself on, but Citizens Advice is the citizens advice bureaux. It is a national network linked to the local one. It is one and the same organisation. It is true to say that there is some local independence of services, but it is a national organisation, and we are funding it. It welcomes that funding. It also receives funding from local authorities of all political persuasions—rightly so.
	In the past few years the CABs have run services directly for local authorities in relation to unclaimed benefit or employment issues. They provide better services that are value for money. I welcome that. We will continue to invest in the CABs and I and the Government as a whole will continue the partnership arrangement. I thank the hon. Member for Wellingborough for his comments. I am sure that the next time we have a date—I mean a debate. I said a date there, I do apologise. Och, you are over 21.
	The hon. Member for Wellingborough suggested a different way of funding risk in the package travel industry. I will be honest with you. This may be a good idea; it may be a barmy idea. When I have read  Hansard, I will write to the hon. Gentleman about that. In the meantime, I will give you some information that may or may not help you, but it is information that I want to put on the record.

Ian McCartney: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is the second time that I have been pulled up today. I explained earlier that I was a bit ring rusty but that I hoped to have a bit more oil in my body by the end of the debate. I am nearly there, and I hope that you do not have to call me to order again—but you have to admit, it is good stuff. We have livened up what could have been a very dry debate and I hope that consumer magazines and newspapers will join the discussion. In that way, they will give information about the services that the Government are providing and the investment that we are putting in.
	I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you do not think that I was using being pulled up as a tactic in the debate. It is not the first time in my life that I have been asked to watch my language.

Ian McCartney: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I stick to what I said. All the new local bureaux services being rolled out across the country are funded directly. The national organisation redistributes the resources that the Government make available, according to where the money is needed. No one would expect the Government to meddle in that. The partnership agreement requires that the national organisation distributes resources and provides services in a way that achieves value for money, but local funding is provided, by agreement, where that is deemed to be more suitable. We are committed to the massive new local investment that I described, and the organisation has made it clear that it is delighted at the huge increase in its capacity to deal with clients in local communities and to help vulnerable people who get into unnecessary debt.
	I know that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford has to be able to tell the people in his local CAB that he has put their case. I accept that he makes a genuine point as, from time to time, I have to put the case for my local bureau with my local authority, but I think that I have responded to it. The Government are spending millions of pounds at both local and national level, and will continue to do so.
	I shall not read out the stuff on package travel for the hon. Member for Wellingborough, as I got diverted. However, I shall write to him with the details, which I shall place in the Library for other colleagues to see.
	Finally, I turn to my—[ Interruption.] The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) makes a remark from a sedentary position, even though he has not contributed to the debate. I am trying to answer the questions that have come up. I know that he thinks that I have been here too long, but that was an unfair comment to make.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) raised a number of issues. I can assure him absolutely that I and the Government are absolutely neutral about how the review of Sunday trading should be conducted. If he reads  Hansard, he will see how complex the issues are. I have made it very clear that the Government want to be pro-business, small or large, and that we also want to be on the side of the people who work in those businesses.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central asked about service workers. I used to be one: I know that service workers need to be properly respected by employers and customers alike, and I have supported the campaign to secure that respect. Millions of pounds are going into training these vulnerable workers through the trade union learning fund and other training services provided by the Government. The national minimum wage has been a big boost to service workers and will continue to help them.
	The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the GMB, which was at the conference yesterday, are part and parcel of the core groups that we are consulting over the future of Sunday trading. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central that USDAW held its first awards ceremony for service workers at the Radisson hotel in Manchester airport—I am always pleased to get in a plug for that airport—and I participated in the presentations there. It was a wonderful occasion, because many ordinary men and women do extraordinary things, but are never recognised. They are not film or sport stars, but each and every day they go to work with a smile on their face to provide a service. Sometimes they get abused, so thank goodness USDAW has the skill, the guile and the knowledge to recognise these extraordinary people for their huge contributions to the community and the British economy.
	The United Utilities company has been transformed over the last few years. I recognise what was said about some of the difficulties, but United Utilities has recently announced a multi-billion pound investment programme on sewer water flooding, for example. John Roberts, the chief executive who has just retired, transformed the company and I am assured that the new chief executive will further transform it, improve customer services and invest its capital and revenue resources to do so. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central will recognise that.
	In conclusion, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford raised a number of questions and I assure him that he will receive replies. Any replies that are non-specific will be placed in the Library, so all hon. Members attending the debate will be able to assess whether the responses that I have given are accurate.
	After a very good debate, I want to stress the positive point that the Government intend to create a world-class regime by the date that I set out. It will benefit business and consumers and will make it clear to those who want to operate scams that we will deal with them. We will deal with those who want to carry out illegal money lending; we will deal with those who want to damage communities by their activities.
	I hope that, after our debate, a consensus will emerge on the road that we are taking. A country with appropriate regulation can ensure that business grows and that, when it does, it is not hindered by cowboy organisations. If any cowboys are providing services in which consumers are badly treated or ill informed, the Government and the state will be on the side of consumers. That is my final point. However long I am in this job as Minister with responsibility for consumers, I am going to be on the consumers' side—not just on Monday or Tuesday, but seven days a week, 24 hours a day and 365 days a year, including leap years.

ROD LICENCES (BORDER ESK)

David Mundell: I am delighted to have secured a debate on a subject about which I could speak at great length, although the House will be pleased to learn that I do not intend to do so. We have an opportunity to debate on the Floor of the House a matter of great concern to my constituents in and around the Muckle Toon of Langholm and the Eskdale valley in Dumfriesshire.
	I raised the matter in my maiden speech and have previously raised it in the Scottish Parliament. It was also brought before the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament. I have already met the Minister to discuss it, but it remains unresolved, so I welcome this opportunity to record the concerns of my constituents about the imposition of rod licences on the Scottish section of the Border Esk and to look for a way forward that commands the support both of my constituents and the Environment Agency.
	I am, however, already reassured about Parliament's role in this matter of great import, for no sooner had I secured today's debate than I had proactive contact from the Environment Agency for the first time. This morning, I was pleased to receive a fax from the Minister of a letter responding to a letter of 30 November 2005. Let no one say that debates in the House do not produce action.
	The matter has a long history and has been raised previously in the House, in particular by one of my predecessors, Lord Monro of Langholm. I pay tribute to him for his assiduous pursuit of the issue over the years, and I thank him for his help as I prepared for the debate. I first became involved as a Member of the Scottish Parliament for the South of Scotland region. I was pleased to welcome members of the Esk and Liddle improvement association to the Scottish Parliament and to support their petition about the inequity of the Environment Agency's imposition of rod licences in 2003.
	The Scottish Executive's failure to get involved at that time was disappointing and lacking in backbone. Their failure to stand up for the interests of my constituents is a clear dereliction of the duties and obligations expected of them by people who supported the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. Instead, the Executive simply kowtowed to the wishes of the Environment Agency and allowed it to go ahead with the rod licensing regime. If the Scottish Executive had spoken out against the introduction of rod licences on the Esk, I do not believe that the Environment Agency would still have gone ahead. That failure to act is consistent with many of the disappointments that people in my constituency have endured since the setting up of the Scottish Parliament.
	I shall not dispute the background to the regulation of fisheries on the Border Esk; as the Environment Agency points out in its briefing for the debate, there has been regulation under English fisheries law since the 1860s. That has never been in dispute, although the agency's responsibility for the Border Esk—and, indeed, the responsibility of the Scottish authorities in various guises for the Tweed—is not based on any scientific fact, but merely reflects the historical need to come to a sensible resolution of cross-border issues. That is why I find it hard to accept the inflexible and unhelpful approach adopted in recent years by the Environment Agency, which, regardless of everything said by Baroness Young and people from the Environment Agency, is wholly contrary to the undertaking that Lord Sewel gave the former MP for Dumfries, Lord Monro, in a letter of 16 November 1998 after Lord Monro had raised the issue during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998.
	Lord Sewel clearly and unequivocally stated:
	"Because of local circumstances, the Environment Agency has never enforced its legal obligation in this area and as I indicated has no intention of changing that situation."
	No satisfactory explanation has ever been proffered, only some bureaucratic nonsense that all rivers must be treated the same and therefore that the Scottish section of the Border Esk must be brought into line with the rest of the rivers within the responsibility of the Environment Agency.

David Mundell: I hope to suggest a set of proposals that will commend themselves not just to the Minister but to the Environment Agency, as he tells me that he cannot tell the Environment Agency what to do. Again, the hon. Gentleman highlights an important point that has arisen recently: the Environment Agency's capacity to prosecute those who do not have rod licences through the Scottish courts, when its framework is geared for England and Wales. I will refer to that later. There have been some recent instances of prosecutions that have not been proceeded with, and although the Environment Agency claims that it has the right and ability to proceed with those prosecutions, the suggestion is that it has drawn back because the law may be over-complex. Again, that reinforces in my mind the need for a solution that can commend itself to all interested parties.
	I cannot accept, however, that is it equitable that a rod licensing regime should apply to the Esk when one is not applied to any other river in Scotland and, as I have just indicated, there is no plan to introduce any. None of the issues that have been raised by the Environment Agency justify the introduction of the licensing regime. Indeed, I find the issue of the costs and recovery of costs a particularly ironic one, since so much money must have been spent on dealing with the local dispute and the questions and correspondence from myself and others, that the sum raised through the licences cannot come even close to the cost of introducing them.
	My preference today would be for the Minister to announce that the Environment Agency has indicated that it has thought again and will not now continue to proceed with the rod licensing regime on the Esk.
	However, having received his letter and the Environment Agency briefing, and having pursued this matter over many years, I am realistic enough to know that that is not likely to happen. As was the case when I met the Minister, I am genuinely seeking a solution within the legislation that will allow the Environment Agency to meet what I consider to be its tick-box requirements, but which will also allow my constituents to fish on the River Esk without making the payments that others in Scotland do not have to make, without individual rod licence payments and without fear of prosecution.
	The solution that I suggest is one that I raised during my meeting with the Minister on 12 October. It has been the subject of discussions in the Esk and Liddle Improvement Association. It would allow a form of general licence to be granted to the association. That provision is allowed under section 25 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. That could allow any angler, including a child or pensioner, with a valid Esk and Liddle Improvement Association fishing permit to be covered by the general licence granted to the association. Of course, any angler who does not have a valid fishing permit from the association would not be covered by the exemption and would have to have a rod licence. I accept that if we are going to have rod licences, that would be the case.
	The Environment Agency briefing anticipates that request by pointing out that a general licence is not usually an alternative to a charging scheme, and fees are based on the number of people who would wish to fish under the licence. However, the Act also makes it clear, as a special provision, that the Environment Agency has the power to waive rod licence duty when it deems that there is a special case. What more special case could there be than a river that is physically in another jurisdiction and is the only one flowing outwith England and Wales within the remit of the Environment Agency? The Border Esk is like no other river under the control of the Environment Agency and so I believe that it falls within the definition of a special case in the legislation. That would allow the general licence to be granted without the payment of a fee.
	The Environment Agency is very keen on the letter of the law, and there can be no doubt that the legislation makes provision to enable it to waive the fee for a general rod licence for the Esk and Liddle Improvement Association. That would provide a solution that would meet the Environment Agency's stated requirement that the rod licensing regime should apply on the river, but it would also ensure that local anglers on the River Esk were treated the same as other anglers in Scotland in relation to the payment of rod licensing fees.
	I would have hoped that the Minister and the Environment Agency would welcome the association's efforts to encourage fishing among young people by a favourable licensing policy for that group, and for retired people too, to allow them to continue to participate in angling. Those initiatives are to be welcomed, not stifled by petty bureaucracy. Only last week, the Environment Agency said how important fishing was in diverting young people from antisocial behaviour. Apparently, the agency hopes to attract 200,000 extra young people to the sport by 2015. According to the statement to the media on the matter, all those extra 200,000 people are to be in England and Wales. If one reads Environment Agency documents, one realises that they generally make no recognition of the Border Esk. Clearly, that reflects the reality that the Border Esk is an anomaly in the Environment Agency. That is another reason why it is a special case and should be treated differently.
	One thing that must come out of the situation is a review of the way in which the Environment Agency has conducted itself. It has been a public relations disaster, which surely has been to no one's benefit. I was a little surprised that the Minister's letter of 3 November 2005 to Baroness Young stated:
	"We (and no doubt you) would regard approaches to the press on the lines of 'Mundell gets DEFRA/EA to back off over rod licence duties on the Border Esk' as entirely inappropriate".
	For me, the issue has been about getting not headlines, but a fair and equitable situation on the Esk. No one is more disappointed than I am that headlines have been easy to obtain. Adverse headlines have appeared about the Environment Agency, such as the latest in the  Eskdale and Liddesdale Advertiser of 27 April, which read: "Esk Fishing Licence Cases Are Dropped." I would prefer to move towards a solution to the problem.
	I am at an absolute loss to understand how the Environment Agency believes that it has benefited from not carrying out effective communication with stakeholders on the Scottish part of the Border Esk and why it thought that a brusque and unrelentingly strident line would achieve its goals. Even in the letter that was faxed to me from the Minister this morning, the Environment Agency says that it wants undertakings about the way in which it will be portrayed in any future discussions on the matter. I am sure that those undertakings can and will be given, but the requirement seems to strike at the heart of the issue. The agency has been more worried about the way in which it is perceived than about fishing on the Esk. At the same time, its stock, rather than the fishing stock, has plummeted. That is why I hope that the agency can now move forward without any baggage and discuss the proposal that I have put on the table this evening of a general licence for the Esk and Liddle Improvement Association with no fee under the special case provision.
	Whether or not I get the response for which my constituents would hope, it has been extremely important to put the issue and their concerns once again on public record. I express my gratitude for the opportunity of doing so and await with interest what the Minister has to say.